BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

New Writ

Ordered,
	That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in the present Parliament for the Borough constituency of Wythenshawe and Sale East, in the room of the Right Honourable Paul Gerard Goggins, deceased.—(Ms Winterton.)

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Bill read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Christians (Middle East)

Stephen Phillips: What steps his Department is taking to protect minority Christian communities in the middle east.

Hugh Robertson: Government Ministers regularly speak out against abuses of the right to freedom of religion or belief. I met minority Christian communities in Egypt in December and in Algeria during my visit there last week precisely to highlight this issue.

Stephen Phillips: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the plight of Christians in Iraq, which often goes unreported in the western media. The scale of the exodus of Christians owing to sectarian violence is unprecedented and those who remain often flee to Kurdish-controlled areas to escape violence in Baghdad. However, although they are physically safer in places such as Irbil, they are struggling to survive. What steps is the Department taking to encourage the Iraqi Government to protect Christians in that country and to improve their security?

Hugh Robertson: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct. The security situation of Iraq’s Christians, and indeed other minorities, remains precarious. We
	continually urge the Iraqi Government, through ministerial contacts and by all other means, to protect all communities and to deal appropriately with those who are found responsible for acts of violence and intimidation because of political, ethnic or religious affiliation.

Naomi Long: The Geneva II peace conference for Syria is taking place tomorrow. What actions are the UK Government going to take to ensure that the voices of Christians and other religious minorities are heard during those negotiations, to ensure that freedom of religion and belief are enshrined in any new constitution?

Hugh Robertson: The hon. Lady is right to raise that issue, and it has been a key concern for the Foreign Secretary and all involved on behalf of the Government. We have absolutely urged the coalition to make sure it is broad based and includes Christians who it will bring to Geneva II. Our hope is that that will be achieved.

James Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that persecution of Christians is also continuing unabated in Iran, with reports of Christians being lashed for drinking communion wine, having their homes raided and having Bibles confiscated? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the particular case of Maryam Naghash Zargaran, who last year received a sentence of four years of imprisonment on account of her Christian beliefs and whose health is now reported as deteriorating? Will my right hon. Friend take up her case with the Iranians?

Hugh Robertson: I certainly will, and my hon. Friend correctly highlights the serious position of Christians, and indeed of other minorities, in Iran. It is important to remember that despite the very welcome unfreezing that is going on in some areas, in other areas little or nothing has changed, and that will very much be part of the negotiations as we move forward.

Ian Lucas: The Minister will be aware that the last three years have proved among the most difficult for Christians right across the region. What specific steps is the Minister taking to point out consistently that tackling the persecution of Christians in the region is fundamental to the UK Government’s approach to dealing with issues of toleration?

Hugh Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise an issue that is often raised in correspondence that Members from across the House send into the Foreign Office. As a result of that, I have made a particular point of going to visit Christian communities in order to highlight their concerns and to ensure that the Governments in many of those countries know we care about those concerns. I had a very good visit with the Coptic community in Egypt the week before Christmas and, as I said in my answer, I have just been to see the Christian community in Algeria during my visit there. I will continue to do that and also to examine with the Churches, and in particular with people such as the Archbishop, with whom I had a conversation about this over Christmas, what more we can do to work better with them.

Pakistan

Henry Bellingham: What recent assessment he has made of the UK’s relations with Pakistan; and if he will make a statement.

Hugo Swire: Our relations with Pakistan remain strong, and we pay tribute to the people of Pakistan in their struggle against recent terrorist violence. Last June, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first foreign Head of Government to visit Pakistan after its new Government took office.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Minister agree that Pakistan’s long-term economic future depends not on more aid, but on more trade and, especially, on improved European Union market access? Does he also agree that Pakistan’s recent joining of the generalised system of preferences plus—GSP plus—is excellent news, as it will open up duty-free access to much of the EU market? However, is he confident that Pakistan will sign up to the international conventions on labour and on good governance?

Hugo Swire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Pakistan’s joining the GSP will drive better governance, as it grants vulnerable countries duty-free access to the EU on two thirds of tariff lines if they implement 27 international conventions on human rights, labour standards, sustainable development and good governance. That is good news for Pakistan and for the EU. Pakistan stands to gain an estimated $500 million and 1 million new jobs from this agreement. It is a sign of a deeper and more effective relationship that benefits both our two countries, given that the UK was at the lead on it.

Susan Elan Jones: Many of us are deeply fearful about the chasm between the official Government position in Pakistan on religious freedom for Christians, Hindus and other religious minorities, and the reality on the ground. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Pakistani Government on the vexed and vexatious blasphemy laws?

Hugo Swire: As the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson) just said, we raise issues of religious tolerance, particularly in respect of Christian minorities, wherever we go. Baroness Warsi repeatedly raised the issue of religious freedom and minority protections at the highest level during her visit to Pakistan in October 2013, and she referred to the issue in an open letter on 25 December. It is worth saying that she had a frank and open discussion with the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September.

David Nuttall: The principal area of concern for many of my constituents of Pakistani origin is the problem of the disputed area of Kashmir. Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House what the latest position is on encouraging both Pakistan and India to work together to give the people of that disputed region the right to decide their future for themselves?

Hugo Swire: I could with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, as I am coming to that question later on this morning. We are heartened by greater communication between India and Pakistan. The lines of communication are now better, but the problems in that region can be solved only by the two Governments of Pakistan and India and the people of Kashmir themselves.

Joan Walley: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to the work in Stoke-on-Trent of the Andrhal Welfare Trust, which is licensed in Pakistan and in the UK? It does vital work to ship out educational material and equipment, and information and communications technology equipment. Shipments are being detained for a lengthy time in Karachi, so, in the interests of education, will he examine how the process can be speeded up?

Hugo Swire: I pay tribute to that trust; anything that further improves education in Pakistan is manifestly a good thing from the UK perspective. If the hon. Lady would like to draw any problems with customs to my attention, I will ensure that officials look into them.

Iran’s Nuclear Programme

John Baron: What recent progress has been made on securing a comprehensive agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme.

Phillip Lee: What recent progress has been made on securing a comprehensive agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme.

William Hague: I welcome the entry into force yesterday of the Geneva joint plan of action. This agreement halts progress in Iran’s nuclear programme in return for proportionate sanctions relief, and will be implemented in parallel with the negotiations on a comprehensive agreement.

John Baron: There has been an encouraging start to these negotiations, so will the Foreign Secretary give his assessment of the wider possible implications of success for other challenges in the region, including Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, and for the prospect of a normalisation of diplomatic relations between the UK and Iran?

William Hague: Some encouragement should be taken, as my hon. Friend says, from the start of the negotiations and from yesterday’s agreement to begin implementing the interim deal. I must stress that a huge amount of work remains to be done to arrive at a comprehensive settlement of the nuclear issue. It will be formidably difficult to do so, but it must remain the main priority. It is too early to say whether that will be accompanied by wider changes in the foreign policy of Iran. In the meantime, we are working, step by step, on building up our bilateral relations, including two visits in recent weeks by our new chargé d’affaires.

Phillip Lee: I welcome any progress in improving relations with the Iranian Government notwithstanding the overnight debacle surrounding the invitation to them to attend Geneva II. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that constructive Iranian involvement is required to secure
	a viable regional security settlement? With that in mind, does he think that Britain should adopt a Gorbachev-like approach to our engagement with reform-minded Iranian politicians, including those in power and those of the future?

William Hague: As I mentioned a moment ago, it would be extremely welcome if there were other wider and constructive changes in the foreign policy of Iran. I intend to have a telephone discussion later today with the Foreign Minister of Iran, building on our recent contact. The United Kingdom is very much in favour of engagement with Iran, but we also need to see commitment from it. It was open to Iran yesterday to say that in the Geneva II process it would support the implementation of Geneva I, which every other country is in favour of and is seeking in the talks this week, but it was not able publicly to make that commitment.

Jack Straw: May I draw it to the House’s attention that I am co-chairman of the all-party group on Iran and was recently a guest of the Iranian Parliament on a parliamentary delegation?
	I commend the work of the Foreign Secretary and welcome the progress that has been made, but will he take account of the fact that many of those in the current Administration in Iran felt, I think quite rightly, badly burned by their experiences of acting in good faith 10 years ago and finding that their best efforts were thwarted, in this case, by forces inside the United States. We must ensure that that does not happen again.

William Hague: Absolutely, we must take account of events 10 or 11 years ago and make sure that we give encouragement to those in Iran who are in favour of better relations with the west and with the region. That has been one of the arguments for proceeding quickly with an agreement on an interim deal. Indeed that was one of the reasons for urgency, apart from the advances of the Iranian nuclear programme, in coming to that deal, so I hope that we can now build on that, and we will make every effort to do so.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary focus his attention on the issue of nuclear proliferation? In welcoming the interim agreement with Iran, does he not accept that it is now important to press ahead with the possibility of a non-proliferation treaty-led conference for a nuclear weapons-free region as a whole, and to use the current good atmosphere to achieve that outcome?

William Hague: Yes, I do accept that. That was an important outcome, promoted by the United Kingdom, of the NPT review conference in 2010. The progress that we are making with Iran is an additional argument in favour of bringing together that conference. There has been some renewed diplomatic momentum behind this over the past couple of months, which we are encouraging. Therefore, I very much hope that, over the course of this year, we will be able to make some serious progress on this.

Menzies Campbell: Has my right hon. Friend made any assessment of the impact, in relation to foreign policy opportunities with Iran, of the fact that an invitation was extended by the United Nations and then withdrawn? Can he conceive
	of any circumstances in which there would be a long-term and effective settlement in Syria that did not have the commitment of Iran behind it?

William Hague: It is very important to the future peace of Syria, when ever we are able to bring that about, to have Iranian commitment to it. That is extremely important, which is why we have never opposed on principle Iranian involvement in the Geneva II process. I stressed last week in the House that it would be important for Iran to give some constructive signal that it would approach Geneva II on the same basis as all other nations, which is to implement the Geneva communiqué of June 2012. It is a great shame that it felt unable to do that publicly yesterday, which is why, to save the Geneva II process, the UN Secretary-General rescinded the invitation that he had issued on Sunday.

Geoffrey Robinson: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that whatever the difficulties with Geneva II and Iran’s participation in it, we should not let them in any way get in the way of the progress that we need to make on the agreement on the nuclear programme? In that respect, will he assure the House, in relation to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), that the resistance that previously existed is not still so potent as to prevent, for example, UK designated banks that are authorised to deal with transactions with Iran from doing so?

William Hague: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are certain measures of sanctions relief that we will now implement, which we agreed yesterday among EU Foreign Ministers. That is part of implementing this deal and we will ensure that that relief can be delivered effectively. Of course, it is also important at the same time to ensure that remaining sanctions are rigorously enforced. I will consider the point that he has raised in the light of that.

Richard Ottaway: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that since he signed the joint agreement with Iran, Iran has installed and started IR-1m centrifuges, which have an enhanced enrichment capacity? Although that might be within the letter of the agreement, does he agree that it flies in the face of its spirit and undermines faith in the Iranians’ willingness to restrain their enrichment capacity?

William Hague: Discussions about more advanced centrifuges and Iran’s intentions to install them have been one of the issues that had to be resolved in agreeing from yesterday to implement this deal. However, the E3 plus 3 countries are satisfied with the arrangements that have been made, which do not involve Iran bringing such centrifuges into operation.

Andrew Gwynne: What conversations is the Foreign Secretary having with his P5 plus 1 partners to secure International Atomic Energy Agency access to sites such as Parchin, a site that the EU body suspects the Iranians are using to test nuclear weapon technology?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, as such issues will need to be addressed beyond the interim deal if we are to arrive at a comprehensive deal. There are many aspects to what the IAEA terms
	the possible military dimensions to Iran’s programme. To reach any comprehensive deal, the international community would have to be satisfied about what is happening in places such as Parchin.

Bahrain

Julian Huppert: What recent assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Bahrain.

Hugh Robertson: The most recent assessment of the human rights situation in Bahrain is in the FCO’s update to its annual human rights report, published last September. The report noted the positive steps taken by the Bahraini Government to improve the human rights situation and highlighted areas where more needed to be done.

Julian Huppert: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs recommended that if Bahrain’s human rights record did not substantially improve by this January, the Foreign Office should designate it as a country of concern. Today, Human Rights Watch launched its world report and stated:
	“Bahrain’s human rights record regressed further in key areas in 2013”,
	from, I have to say, a fairly low base. Will the Minister accept the recommendation of the Select Committee and designate Bahrain as a country of concern?

Hugh Robertson: Clearly, we follow events in Bahrain very carefully and the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Crown Prince about the situation recently. With the full backing of the King, the Crown Prince has begun a set of meetings to start a political dialogue process. We very much hope that that will see concrete steps taken to improve the situation.

Ann Clwyd: What is the Foreign Office doing to object strongly to the stripping of nationality from 31 Bahraini citizens? That is a disgrace. Bahrain always cites the UK as an example of another country that has in the past stripped people of their nationality, so I would be glad if the Foreign Office would refute that.

Hugh Robertson: We have a regular programme of contacts with the Bahrain Government that cover a considerable number of areas across our bilateral relationship. That is an issue that we discuss with them regularly and it will most certainly be part of the Crown Prince’s new political dialogue. I very much hope that some progress will be made.

LGBT Rights (Russia)

Tom Blenkinsop: What recent discussions he has had with his Russian counterpart on LGBT rights in that country.

William Hague: I discussed the issue with Foreign Minister Lavrov at the UN General Assembly in September. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media
	and Sport raised concerns about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights with Deputy Prime Minister Golodets in December and the Prime Minister made clear the strength of feeling about the new law to President Putin in September.

Tom Blenkinsop: Will the Foreign Secretary commend and applaud the message of equality and diversity implicit in President Obama’s decision to include two gay athletes in the USA’s official delegation to the winter Olympics in Sochi?

William Hague: Yes, I absolutely commend that. The United Kingdom will continue to make our views very clear about this issue, in Russia too, with Russian leaders, and worldwide. I hope there will be better reflection in Russia over time on this issue.

Kerry McCarthy: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s words and the confirmation that the Government will continue to raise this at the highest level, but what will such conversations achieve? It is clear that despite the expressions of international concern, not just Russia but several Commonwealth countries too, are moving in the wrong direction on LGBT rights. Now that Russia and the UK are both back on the Human Rights Council, does he perhaps see that as a way of making sure that it is not just about words, but about action too?

William Hague: We must all hope so. We cannot control the decisions in other countries but we can make the arguments and make our point very clear, as I did in a speech at the Perth Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2011. We have raised these issues with the Nigerian Government and we fund actual projects as well. It is not just words from the United Kingdom. We have provided funding in Russia for the Side by Side film festival, we have funded a project to increase the capacity of LGBT civil society organisations in Russia, and FCO officials in Russia meet LGBT activists regularly. We do give meaningful support, as well as the words of all of us in this House.

European Union (Free Movement)

Christopher Pincher: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on reforming the principle of free movement within the EU.

William Hague: I discussed free movement with my Hungarian and Bulgarian counterparts last week. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe raised free movement at the December General Affairs Council and the Prime Minister was clear at the December European Council that free movement cannot remain completely unqualified.

Christopher Pincher: When my right hon. Friend discusses these issues with his counterparts in Europe, will he remind them that because British immigration was previously out of control, if there is to be confidence here in the single market, and if we are to welcome talented and skilled migrants to work in our country, a broken system that allows mass population movements
	from the south to the north of Europe—because migrants think that if they cannot get jobs, they can certainly get generous benefits—must be fixed?

William Hague: Certainly I make the point to colleagues across the European Union that the long-term sustainability of the free movement of workers requires the sort of reforms that my colleagues in the Government have announced in recent weeks, particularly on rules that govern our social welfare system. Other member states share our concerns on abuse of free movement, particularly Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, so we will continue to make these points.

Keith Vaz: Following the Prime Minister’s statement after the European Council meeting, there was a suggestion that there should be a cap. Does the Foreign Secretary have a figure as to what that cap should be?

William Hague: No, we have not set out a particular figure, because that is for discussion with member states in the future. There needs to be a discussion about how we handle these things. In the long-term future, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, across the House we are strongly in favour of the enlargement of the European Union, but the next member state to join the EU is quite some years away in all probability. These are things that need to be discussed in the context of the whole future of the EU.

Common Fisheries Policy

Sarah Wollaston: What recent progress has been made on negotiations on reform of the common fisheries policy.

William Hague: The UK has recently secured important reforms to the common fisheries policy. We have banned the wasteful practice of discarding edible fish, decentralised key decisions on managing fisheries from Brussels to groups of national Governments, and introduced legally binding measures to end overfishing. This is tangible progress towards a more competitive and flexible EU.

Sarah Wollaston: It is right that we move to end the scandal of discarding healthy fish. It shows how renegotiation within the EU is possible. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in paying tribute to the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) in his success in those renegotiations, and perhaps even set out for the House what further negotiations a Conservative Government plan?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). This is an important negotiating success. It shows that decision making can be decentralised away from Brussels, producing at the same time a more sustainable and successful policy overall. That decentralisation and the greater accountability to national Parliaments are important aspects of the changes we want to see in the European Union, as the Prime Minister set out in his speech a year ago.

Ben Bradshaw: The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that fish swim around and are no respecters of national boundaries, which means that any effective policy to conserve stocks has to be agreed with our neighbours, so why do some in his party still seem to hanker after a return to a chaotic series of multilateral and bilateral agreements, which would be devastating for our marine environment, rather than the sensible reforms that he and our Government before him achieved?

William Hague: The observation that fish swim around is not among the most devastating revelations to be heard in the House of Commons recently, but we know the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. The point I would make in return is that the common fisheries policy has been one of the European Union’s greatest catastrophes, and we are much more likely to encourage good conservation and a prosperous future for fisheries across the European Union if this is done on a more decentralised basis. It is not about not co-operating with our neighbours; it is about co-operating with them on a meaningful scale and at a regional level so that sensible decisions can be taken, unlike the absolutely disastrous policy that preceded it.

Anne McIntosh: Is the Foreign Secretary, like me, a fan of “The Bridge”, the Danish/Swedish drama currently on BBC Four on Saturday evening? The Danish/Swedish model lies at the heart of the common fisheries policy reforms. If that is the new way forward for decentralisation, which other models might he alight on in that regard?

William Hague: Well, so many Danish/Swedish models on a Saturday evening must be very enjoyable, but I cannot say that I have been watching that programme. Of course, the decentralised model of decision making is the one that will work, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach for 28 countries. Such an approach is not right for fisheries, or for so many other areas. Again, that is the point of seeking real reform in the European Union.

Angus Robertson: The Foreign Secretary is right to describe the common fisheries policy as a disaster, but in fairness he should probably acknowledge that it was a Conservative Government who signed us up to it in the first place. He is also aware that Cabinet documents have shown that the Scottish fishing fleet in a European context has been described as “expendable”. Is it the UK Government’s current position that they prefer land-locked European Union member states such as Slovakia having a more direct say over the Scottish fishing industry than the Scottish Government?

William Hague: No, the Government have stood up for fisheries in Scotland, and we have done so very energetically in recent decisions. Indeed, it is intended that a great deal of the benefit of the changes in the common fisheries policy will be felt by Scotland. The United Kingdom can always be counted on to do that, and I think that we will do so more successfully than would a separate Scotland, which would in any case be outside the European Union.

Company Beneficial Ownership

Duncan Hames: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Governments of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories on establishing registers of company beneficial ownership.

Mark Simmonds: The Government are in ongoing dialogue with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories on the establishment of central registries of company beneficial ownership. I discussed the issue with territory leaders at the joint ministerial council last November, as did the Treasury Minister. We agreed to continue to work in partnership to tackle the global challenges of corporate secrecy.

Duncan Hames: Supporters of Christian Aid from St Andrew’s church in Chippenham who met me before Christmas will welcome the Government’s decision to publish a register of company beneficial ownership and the leadership they have shown on the matter, but given that so much money is leaving developing countries for our overseas territories, it is very important that similar transparency is shown there. If the consultations that are currently being launched by the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands provide a further opportunity for the Government to present evidence to encourage them to publish a register, will he please take that opportunity in the hope that that might happen?

Mr Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will get back to his normal form, having recovered from his splendid paternity leave.

Mark Simmonds: The first thing that needs to be said is that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies have responded extremely positively and have taken steps in response to the Prime Minister’s G8 agenda of tax, trade and transparency by signing up to multilateral conventions on tax matters and signing agreements automatically to exchange tax information—a significant step change in tax transparency—as well as setting out action plans and consultations as regards setting up registers of beneficial ownership and making them accessible to the public.

Jammu and Kashmir

Gavin Shuker: What recent reports he has received on human rights violations in the Jammu and Kashmir region.

Hugo Swire: We are aware of allegations of human rights abuses on both sides of the line of control. We are clear that allegations of human rights abuses require proper investigation, and we regularly raise concerns through our missions in Islamabad and Delhi, as appropriate.

Gavin Shuker: The number of civilian deaths attributed to the Indian forces is now greater than the number attributed to terrorist attacks in the region. Will the Minister assure me that these issues are being raised not
	only in our official discussions but at ministerial level, given the number of delegations and trips to India in recent years?

Hugo Swire: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the past few years India and Pakistan have made progress on trade, with both countries agreeing to double bilateral trade by 2014. India has lifted a ban on direct investment from Pakistan, and both sides have implemented a new visa regime. Ultimately, we want to encourage progress between India and Pakistan. Our position, as is well known, is to allow both sides to decide the pace of dialogue, as any direct involvement or international intervention would not be welcomed—by India, certainly.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is the Minister aware of the petition signed by thousands of my constituents —and, I believe, people in other constituencies —asking for a debate about human rights in Jammu and Kashmir, and can he assist by giving us such a debate in Government time?

Hugo Swire: I was not aware of the petition to which the hon. Lady alludes, but her comments will certainly have been noted, not least by the Chair.

Afghanistan (Security Arrangements)

Nick Brown: What recent discussions he has had with his Afghan counterpart on security arrangements after 2014; and if he will make a statement.

Hugh Robertson: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed this issue with Foreign Minister Osmani at the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in December. The UK’s long-term commitment to Afghanistan is made clear in the enduring strategic partnership document signed by the Prime Minister and President Karzai in January 2012 and reviewed annually by a ministerial joint commission.

Nick Brown: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the campaign being run by Amnesty International aimed at strengthening and protecting the rights of women in the security arrangements and more broadly in civic society. What can he say to the House that will reassure those campaigners?

Hugh Robertson: The UK has made it absolutely clear to the Afghan Government that the historic gains since 2001, including on women’s rights, must not be lost. These commitments are enshrined in the Tokyo mutual accountability framework, and we will be doing everything possible to ensure that the Afghan Government meet them.

Rehman Chishti: Does the Minister agree that the security situation in Afghanistan post-2014 is linked to working with Pakistan to stop the terrorism that is going from one country to the other across the large border between the two countries?

Hugh Robertson: Absolutely. Anybody who has come back from Afghanistan recently, particularly from the military side, will point to the real improvements made by the Afghan security forces. It would be a great shame if that were lost in the political discussions that take place above that.

John Spellar: May I join my right hon. Friend for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and old boss in paying tribute to the work of Amnesty International in Afghanistan and thank the Minister for his reply? On 23 April last year, I asked the Foreign Secretary what steps he was taking to ensure the protection of British forces and civilians in Afghanistan. In the light of the shocking events in Kabul in the past few days, can he provide reassurance to them and their families as to what is being done to provide protection now and after the military draw-down?

Hugh Robertson: After the military draw-down, of course, the hope is that a NATO-led mission will replace the international security assistance force. Britain’s part in that will be to provide mentors and trainers. We keep the security situation in Kabul and elsewhere under close review on a daily, if not hourly, basis, and we amend the advice accordingly.

Geneva II Summit

Toby Perkins: What preparations his Department has made ahead of the Geneva II summit on Syria.

William Hague: The objective of Geneva II is to establish by mutual consent a transitional governing body in Syria with full executive powers. The regime, opposition and invited states should attend on that basis, and all sides need to improve the dire humanitarian situation, including through prisoner releases and improving access.

Toby Perkins: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. Did the United Nations Secretary-General consult him before Iran’s invitation to Geneva II was issued, and if so, what was his response to that consultation?

William Hague: There have been many consultations at the UN Security Council, such as between the Secretary-General and the permanent representatives, including the UK’s permanent representative. Our advice has always been what I said in the House last week—that we were not opposed in principle to Iran attending, but that we wanted a clearer and more constructive public commitment by Iran to the objectives of the Geneva II conference, which I have just set out. In the light of Iranian unwillingness to make such a commitment yesterday, the Secretary-General was right to rescind the invitation.

Robert Halfon: As the Soviet Union of the middle east, Iran continues to prop up the Assad regime. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to try to stop Iranian influence in Syria?

William Hague: Of course, we want Iran to desist from supporting the brutality of the Assad regime, which has been highlighted again overnight by shocking evidence of the torture, abuse and murder of people in detention at the regime’s hands. We will always try persuasion, but in the end it is in Iran’s interests for there to be peace in Syria. We therefore ask Iran to embrace that opportunity.

Peter Hain: Will the Foreign Secretary correct me if I am wrong about the tortuous diplomacy over Geneva II? Iran’s participation is clearly essential to getting an agreement to end the catastrophic war. Iran knows that a transitional Government is the only way of doing that. On the other hand, it does not want to be seen to be abandoning its long-term ally, the barbarous regime in Syria. As we know from Northern Ireland, preconditions often kill the prospect of any negotiated solution. How will we resolve that impasse?

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about it being a tortuous process, including over the past few days, but it should be possible for Iran to say what others, including Russia, are able to come to Geneva II and say—that our aim is to implement the objective of the Geneva I communiqué: a transitional governing body by mutual consent. It was not a precondition, but it was fair to expect Iran to come to the conference on the same basis as all other foreign states. The practical reality is that if it was not prepared to say that, it would have led to the collapse of the conference. It was clear that if it did not do that, we would not be going to Geneva II tomorrow.

Philip Hollobone: With the spotlight falling on Russia ahead of the winter Olympic games, will the Foreign Secretary press the Russians to increase their contribution to humanitarian aid, the need for which is in large part caused by their support for the Assad regime?

William Hague: Yes, we do raise that with Russia, and we particularly raise the issue of humanitarian access. We and other countries are providing generously for humanitarian relief in and around Syria, but the regime continues to deny access to more than 200,000 people in besieged areas. We continue to look to Russia to help to lift the regime’s sieges of those areas.

Douglas Alexander: This morning’s reports in The Guardian of the systematic killing and torture by Syrian Government forces of 11,000 detainees are deeply disturbing. The important work done to collect and publish that material was essentially a privately funded initiative run by a London-based law firm. In the light of that, will the Foreign Secretary set out what steps the international community, and the UK Government in particular, are taking to help catalogue and document evidence about alleged gross violations of human rights?

William Hague: We have a done a great deal, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the evidence that was published last night. That was done with the assistance of the Qatari Government, so it was not entirely a private initiative. I have seen a lot of the evidence. It is compelling and horrific, and it is important that those who have perpetrated those crimes are one day held to account. The United Kingdom has done a great deal in the documentation of human rights abuses, and part of the support we have given to moderate political forces in Syria is to train human rights activists in the recording and documentation of crimes, many of which have therefore come to the world’s attention. We will do more of that.

Douglas Alexander: We all welcome the fact that the Geneva II conference is due to commence in Switzerland tomorrow. Will the Foreign Secretary today set out what he would regard to be realistic ambitions for the discussions this week? Does he agree that confidence-building measures could be an important step towards securing further progress, and if so, does he believe in the relative likelihood of local ceasefires, humanitarian access, or prisoner exchanges being agreed in the coming days?

William Hague: Confidence-building measures would assist enormously, including prisoner releases and local ceasefires. Although there have been discussions about those issues over the past 10 days, they have not yet borne fruit, and it is important that real effort is made on that in the opening stages of the Geneva II talks. I will attend the opening of those talks tomorrow and speak on behalf of our country, and I will encourage progress from all sides on the creation of a transitional governing body. Realistically, we are starting a process; it is important that a political process is started and then pursued.

EU Codified Constitution

Andrew Turner: If he will make an assessment of the effect of a codified constitution on member states’ ability to regulate within the European Union.

William Hague: European Union member states have widely differing constitutional structures. In Germany, for instance, the constitutional court has highlighted instances of where the Bundestag’s rights are close to being infringed. In the UK, European Union law takes effect only by virtue of the will of Parliament.

Andrew Turner: We are fortunate in that our constitution is unwritten, or rather written on a number of documents. Why does the existence under EU law of a written constitution protect the rights of Germans, while our unwritten constitution does not give the UK equivalent protection?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of the German constitutional court and its written constitution, and it has sometimes warned of the limits of the EU’s role. It has insisted that questions should be referred to the German Parliament, but it has never directly overridden EU law, and we must bear that in mind about its constitutional structure. As my hon. Friend knows, and as he supported in the European Union Act 2011, we have made clear the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament in this country. That is the constitutional position, but we made it clearer in our 2011 Act.

Frank Roy: What assessment has the Secretary of State made as to whether an independent Scotland would be able to regulate within the EU without having to negotiate to join in the first place?

William Hague: A Scotland that left the United Kingdom would have to negotiate afresh its membership of the European Union. It would have to do so without some of the favourable settlements that we have achieved in
	the past with the European Union, such as the rebate. Not only would Scotland no longer be entitled to the rebate, but it would have to contribute to the rebate of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Topical Questions

Ian Lavery: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

William Hague: Yesterday I attended the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Union in Brussels, and later today I will travel to Switzerland to take part in the Geneva II talks.

Ian Lavery: On 4 January, Francisco Toloza, another leading member of the Patriotic March political movement in Colombia, was arrested and charged with the usual accusation of rebellion. Given that 25 of that group’s leading members were murdered last year alone, do the Government still insist that Colombia is a democratic country that allows opposition political participation?

Hugo Swire: The answer is yes, we do. Human rights continue to be an important part of our relationship with Colombia. They were discussed with President Santos during his visit to the UK from 6 June last year. We have never hidden our concerns about human rights in that country. Equally, we are supportive of the mass improvement in the general well-being of Colombians under the president and his negotiations with the FARC guerrillas. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will have an opportunity to raise those matters when he visits Colombia shortly.

Jason McCartney: Holocaust memorial day takes place next Monday. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending the role that British veterans played in defeating the Nazis in the second world war, and in liberating the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp almost 70 years ago?

William Hague: Yes, absolutely—my hon. Friend is right to highlight the vital role of British forces. Later this year, we will have the 70th anniversary of D-day, when it will be important to remember that it made possible the liberation of Europe and the role of British forces in doing exactly what he has described.

Douglas Alexander: Given the publication by the Foreign Office of its Scotland analysis paper last week, what is the Foreign Secretary’s assessment of the impact on Scotland’s exports and influence of reducing a diplomatic network of 14,000 people spread across 267 locations and 152 countries to just 70 to 90 diplomatic offices?

William Hague: It is clear that Scottish independence would involve a huge reduction in its diplomatic presence and influence around the world. We make a great impact as the United Kingdom on so many issues all over the globe. It would not be possible to do that with between 70 and 90 offices in place of our current 267 embassies and consulates. It would also not be possible to replicate the huge effort that the UK Government and UK Trade
	& Investment put in to promoting Scottish exports and trade around the world. For instance, I am very proud of everything I have done to promote the interests of scotch whisky all over the world.

Julian Huppert: The Foreign Secretary has often highlighted the fact that a warrant is needed for GCHQ to search content. We now know that the dishfire scheme acknowledged by the National Security Agency allows people in GCHQ to search the content of people’s text messages. To avoid reading the content, analysts are warned to flick a toggle on the form. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that it would be unlawful to read content without a warrant? How can he be sure that all analysts always tick the right box on the form?

William Hague: My hon. Friend knows that I cannot go into intelligence matters in Parliament beyond the statement I gave on 10 June last year. Therefore, I do not confirm or deny reports that appear in newspapers that may or may not be true. However, I can always confirm that the legal structure in this country is very strong and robust. As I have said before, the interception of the content of communications in the UK requires a warrant from me or the Home Secretary. The interception of communications commissioner then reports to the Prime Minister on how we and our officials do our jobs.

Jim McGovern: Back in 2006, I was delighted to be able to smooth out some red tape to allow Father Jean-Pierre Ndulani from the Congo to come to my constituency to work as a priest in the Wellburn care home run by the Little Sisters of the Poor. He returned to the Congo in 2012. Not long after his return, he was kidnapped along with two colleagues. I have written to the Foreign Secretary’s office and am grateful for the response, but may I urge him to use all the powers within his good offices to find out the whereabouts, and more importantly the well-being, of Father Jean-Pierre? Many of my constituents still ask me about him.

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that case. He mentioned his correspondence with the Foreign Office. I will visit the Democratic Republic of the Congo shortly, when I will ensure that I raise that specific case with the Congolese authorities.

John Pugh: Somalia banned the celebration of Christmas, but we give it £130 million in aid. Is it not time to play hardball with that country?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there is a very small religious minority in Somalia. For some considerable time, we have worked with the new federal Government of Somalia to improve human rights for everybody in Somalia, irrespective of their religious persuasion. We have worked to encourage a human rights commission, to finalise a human rights road map and to support the United Nations assistance mission in Somalia—UNSOM—in taking a strong lead on building and monitoring human rights there.

Naomi Long: Pakistan’s federal sharia court has ordered the Government in Islamabad to implement only the death penalty in cases of blasphemy, and the 60-day time
	limit for the Government to appeal against that is almost up. Given that blasphemy laws are already being abused to settle personal scores, does the Foreign Secretary agree that this could lead to more abuse and a climate of intolerance against religious minorities in Pakistan?

William Hague: Yes, I have raised these issues, and the whole issue of the death penalty in Pakistan, with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his national security adviser. I have made very clear the United Kingdom’s longstanding view on the death penalty and I hope that there will continue to be, one way or another, a moratorium on the death penalty in such cases.

George Freeman: Following the Prime Minister’s Bloomberg speech on EU reform last year, last week the Chancellor welcomed more than 300 parliamentarians and leaders across Europe to the Fresh Start conference to debate a series of reforms on trade, free movement and deregulation. Is it not the case that Conservative Ministers and Members are leading the EU reform and renegotiation debate, on which our opponents and coalition partners are strangely silent?

William Hague: I could not possibly disagree with that observation. I congratulate Fresh Start and Open Europe on holding the conference last week, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor addressed. It was interesting that people were there from many other EU countries who want to have the discussion on how the EU becomes more flexible and more competitive, with greater accountability to national Parliaments. That is the debate we are leading.

Mark Durkan: Further to the case raised by the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) on Colombia, will the Minister address the case of Huber Ballesteros, who will face trial in a number of weeks, also on a contrived charge of rebellion? Will he address these human rights issues in a way that does not just send a signal to the Santos regime that they somehow fall within a margin of tolerable excess in the context of a peace process?

Hugo Swire: That is not the case. We are, of course, aware of the detention of Mr Ballesteros on 25 August. Our ambassador to Colombia wrote to the Colombian prosecutor general on 28 August to highlight our interest in the case and to request information on the charges. Staff at our embassy in Bogota are seeking permission to visit Mr Ballesteros in prison. It is simply not the case that we turn to one side and avert our gaze to what we regard as human rights violations in Colombia.

Paul Uppal: My right hon. Friend will be alarmed, as I was, at the release of documents last week on the attack at the Golden Temple in 1984. The Prime Minister made a swift response in terms of the Cabinet Secretary. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the timeline for the inquiry and for a possible statement to this House?

William Hague: I know that my hon. Friend is very assiduous in pursuing this matter. As the Prime Minister said last week, these events led to a tragic loss of life. We
	understand the legitimate concerns that the papers that have been published will raise. As he said, the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Secretary to look into this case urgently and to establish the facts. That review by the Cabinet Secretary will soon reach its conclusion, and its conclusions and findings will be published in the near future.

Luciana Berger: Despite its vast mineral wealth, for too many years the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been held back by corruption, poor infrastructure and conflict. In the east of the country, more than 800,000 people have been forced to flee their homes by the M23 rebel militia group. I note that the Minister said that he does have a visit due, but given the huge economic potential of central Africa what concrete actions are the Government considering to support peace and economic development in the DRC?

Mark Simmonds: The hon. Lady raises a very important issue. Significant discussions have been taking place and will continue to take place. We support the Democratic Republic of the Congo through our significant bilateral aid programme, as well as by supporting multilateral institutions. The progress made by the UN mission and the Secretary-General’s special representative to negate the influence of the M23, which has now completely surrendered, and to tackle other armed militia groups in the eastern part of the DRC, is a key cornerstone to creating stability and security, which will then lead to developmental assistance.

Simon Burns: Further to the shadow Foreign Secretary’s question, may I ask my right hon. Friend, on the wider issue of foreign policy, what assessment he has carried out on the impact on Scotland of our foreign policy and all the work done by our embassies and high commissions day in, day out, including UKTI, on behalf of this country and its citizens?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend is right to refer to this point, because in addition to what I mentioned in response to the shadow Foreign Secretary, this country has a huge consular network—one of the biggest of any country in the world. We look after British nationals wherever they are overseas, and there is no way that a Scotland separate from the UK could compete with that network. An ambassador of a new country arriving in, say, Washington DC would be the 179th ambassador arriving in town, which could not compete with the influence of the UK in Washington.

Gavin Shuker: A number of individuals and charities in my constituency have contacted me about the difficulties they have encountered in funding legitimate humanitarian action in the disputed region of Kashmir. Will the Secretary of State allow a Minister to meet me briefly to discuss these concerns?

Hugo Swire: Either I or my noble Friend Baroness Warsi, who has responsibility for these matters, will, I am sure, be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

Greg Knight: Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on what is happening to his constituent, my constituent and others arrested
	from a vessel off Tamil Nadu? Can anything more be done to expedite their release? Given that they were only obeying orders, should it not be the captain who faces the charges, and should these men not be freed?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. As he knows, I am familiar with this case, because one of my constituents is involved. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), will be meeting him and other Members about the matter this afternoon. I have raised it with the Indian Foreign Minister, and the Prime Minister has raised it with the Prime Minister of India. It has also been raised with the Ministry of External Affairs in Delhi this month, and will be raised now with the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu.

Dave Watts: If we are to end the bloodbath in Syria, will it not have to involve Iran, and should we not get on and start the peace process now? If the Foreign Secretary does not agree, will he set out how he will achieve this without the help of Iran?

William Hague: As we discussed earlier, we will start the Geneva II process tomorrow. We were not opposed in principle to Iran’s involvement, but we all have to face up to the fact that if the invitation to Iran yesterday had been proceeded with, without the necessary statement from Iran, the whole conference would have collapsed, and there would be no Geneva II process at all. Diplomacy involves some difficult compromises and tortuous moments, as the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain) said, and this has been one of them, but it is vital that we get this process going.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Extreme brevity is now required, as will be exemplified, I know, by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale).

John Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the latest laws passed in Ukraine severely restricting democratic protest represent a further step backwards and are fuel for the shocking violence seen overnight? Will he send a clear message to the Ukrainian Government that we will take measures against those responsible and a message to the Russian Government that this is for the Ukrainian people to resolve?

William Hague: Yes, I agree with all of that. I issued a statement on this yesterday. We believe it was a serious mistake for the Ukrainian Administration to enact legislation placing greater restrictions on fundamental freedoms, and we will continue to make that argument.

Andrew Miller: May I draw the Foreign Secretary’s attention to my point of order yesterday about the Government’s failure to brief me about the destruction of chemical weapons in my constituency? Will he undertake, first, to answer, as a matter of urgency, my five named day questions, and secondly to ensure the high-level ministerial briefing
	for me that was promised to the company—not to me—and thirdly will he put on the record his apology to my constituents for his failure?

Mr Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s appetite can be satisfied, at any rate for today. We shall see.

William Hague: Broadly, yes. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not had a briefing on this. I shall ensure he gets one from the relevant Ministers. Of course, this was the destruction not of chemical weapons—let me reassure him about that—but of precursor chemicals that are no different in form when they come to the UK from other industrial chemicals that are regularly destroyed here. He is entitled to a detailed briefing, however, and I shall ensure that he gets one.

Richard Benyon: Can my right hon. Friend bring us up to date on what the Government are seeking to achieve from the very welcome conference on international wildlife crime taking place in London next month?

Mark Simmonds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a particular passion and knowledge in this important area. The purpose of the summit is to draw
	together the work being done in a range of states, supported by the UK, the USA and interested African states such as Gabon. The purpose is not just to talk about what can be achieved; we want real results on security, the environment and the economy, reducing demand as well as cutting off the supply.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Valerie Vaz.

Valerie Vaz: May I ask the Minister on his next visit to Burma to raise the letter that Mr Speaker has written to Minister Soe Thein with a list of political prisoners and to ask for their unconditional release?

Hugo Swire: I am travelling to Burma very shortly. I raised some individual cases with some success when I was last there, last year. I should be delighted to take the list to which the hon. Lady refers and raise it with the authorities when I meet them in the coming days.

Mr Speaker: I genuinely apologise to colleagues whom I was not able to call, but we did proceed relatively slowly today, which did not greatly assist matters. However, this is a box-office occasion and I shall try to bear in mind those who were not able to contribute today for subsequent occasions.

Adventure and Gap Year Activity Companies (Accreditation and Inspection)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Kate Green: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a register of accredited providers of adventure and gap year activities in the UK and overseas, where such activities are offered by a UK-owned or managed business; for the provision of consumer information about the registration process; for inspections of providers of such activities and for a register of approved inspectors; and for connected purposes.
	In August 2006, Luke Molnar, the 17-year-old son of my constituents Gill and Steve Molnar, died on the island of Tokoriki. Luke was a paying volunteer on a diving expedition arranged by a UK-based company, Coral Cay Conservation Ltd. On the day of his death, he went to assist a friend who had received an electric shock when he touched a washing line. When Luke touched the line, he received a massive electric shock, which killed him. It transpired that a local electrician had wired the washing line to the electricity supply in order to run power to a number of huts that were being used as accommodation for the volunteers.
	A coroner’s inquest held in Manchester in 2011 returned a verdict of unlawful killing and the electrician was convicted of manslaughter by a court in Fiji, but no proceedings have been taken against Coral Cay or its then directors. The company has since been taken over and is under new ownership. Luke was a fine diver and he was well aware of the risks involved in such an activity. He and his parents undertook very careful research into the expedition and the facilities that would be available before he embarked on the trip, but the coroner’s inquest exposed a total lack of care for health and safety by the then management of Coral Cay. Claims on the company’s website of high standards and qualified personnel on site—claims that were relied on by the Molnars—turned out to be entirely false.
	Luke’s death is not the only instance in recent years of young people, often minors, being placed at lethal risk on overseas adventure activities. The inquest into the death of 17-year-old Samuel Boon, who died on a trekking holiday in Morocco, concluded just last week. In a number of cases, including Luke’s, coroners have highlighted a series of concerns, including a lack of regulation and suitably qualified expedition leaders with good local knowledge. Parents and families place great trust in the UK-owned companies that provide and manage such expeditions, yet they are being denied genuine assurance that proper quality standards are being met.
	Of course, in the case of UK activities, a much more stringent regulatory environment has existed for a number of years, following the establishment of the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority as a result of the Lyme bay tragedy, in which four teenagers died. However, the future of the AALA is now worryingly uncertain, and although other excellent quality standards exist, including the Learning Outside the Classroom badge and British standard 8848, today parents face a bewildering landscape
	of standards, accreditation processes and inspection regimes, on which they are desperately reliant to ensure that their children are safe.
	To its credit, the industry has been anxious to address these concerns, and I want to place on record my thanks to the many groups and individuals who have spent time talking to me about the different regimes that exist and explaining their different features and benefits. I would particularly like to thank members of the British Standards Institution committee SVS/2/5 on adventurous activities, expeditions, visits and fieldwork, which has been conducting a review of British standard 8848; Beth Gardner of the Council for Learning Outside the Classroom; and Alistair Cole of the Expedition Providers Association, who is also chief executive of the Lifesigns group, the new owners of Coral Cay. All those bodies are acutely aware of the vital need for public reassurance and confidence that the activities they are offer are safe.
	I welcome the work done to establish high-quality standards, but the fact is that it remains entirely possible for a completely unqualified, inexperienced provider to offer overseas adventure activities without having to comply with any safety standards at all. No parent could possibly be willing to allow their child to participate in activities that have not met the most rigorous safety standards. Every parent would want to assure themselves that adequate safety procedures existed and that proper checks and controls were routinely carried out. Parents would be especially reassured where a provider had been accredited to an independent standard. They would want to know what the standard encompassed and whether an organisation that claimed to meet it had been independently assessed.
	How would parents know that today? Given the range of accreditation processes and standards, it would be difficult and chancy, even for the most clued-up and careful parents, as the experience of the Molnars shows. That is why I have been discussing with industry leaders the idea of providing a register of accredited providers, which would clearly set out what standard a provider had complied with, whether it had been independently accredited as meeting that standard or whether it had self-assessed. My motion proposes a Bill to introduce the establishment of such a register.
	There are those who will say that conformity assessment schemes can restrict innovation and competition, and that the very essence of the activities I am talking about is that they contain a degree of risk, which is, of course, indeed the case. But no parent would consider a single avoidable risk a price worth paying, and I am pleased that many of those I have spoken to in the industry now recognise the value of a register of accredited providers to reassure parents that avoidable risks have been properly addressed. To be clear, this modest proposal is not for mandatory accreditation, but for a publicly available record of who is or is not accredited. The transparency of such a register would create an impetus and expectation that good providers would be accredited and bad providers driven out of business.
	Such a register would not, of course, eliminate every risk, but it would be an important step that could help to prevent another family from experiencing the horror faced by the Molnars in 2006. Gill and Steve have been brave, passionate and committed campaigners, and they are here closely watching this debate. They strongly
	support the creation of such a register, so that some small good might come from Luke’s tragic death. I commend the motion to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Kate Green, Sir Peter Tapsell, Alison Seabeck, Dan Jarvis, Bob Stewart, Mr Michael McCann and Chris Bryant present the Bill.
	Kate Green accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed (Bill 157).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[18th Allotted Day]
	 — 
	Pub Companies

[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 2004-05, on Pub Companies, HC 128 and the Government’s response, HC 434. The Seventh Report from the Business and Enterprise Committee, Session 2008-09, on Pub Companies, HC 26. The Third Special Report from the Business and Enterprise Committee, Session 2008-09, on Pub Companies, HC 798. The Fifth Report from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, Session 2009-10, on Pub Companies: follow-up, HC 138, and the Government’s response, HC 503. The Tenth Report from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, Session 2010-12, on Pub Companies, HC 1369, and the Government’s response, Cm 8222. Oral evidence taken before the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee on 6 December 2011, HC 1690-i of Session 2010-12. The Fourth Report from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, on Consultation on a Statutory Code for Pub Companies, HC 314.]

Mr Speaker: I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment In the name of the Prime Minister.

Toby Perkins: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that two years have passed since its resolution on pub companies of 12 January 2012; remains of the view that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee was right to state in its Fourth Report, on Consultation on a Statutory Code for Pub Companies, HC 314, that only a statutory code of practice which included a mandatory rent-only option for pub companies which own over 500 pubs, an open market rent review and an independent adjudicator would resolve the contractual problems between the big pub companies and their lessees; further notes that pub closures are increasing, and believes that the Government should by July 2014 bring forward legislative proposals to introduce a statutory code of practice of the kind recommended by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee.
	For many Members, January in Parliament means two things. First—for some— it means the worthy, if somewhat joyless, challenge of a dry month, and secondly, it means a parliamentary debate about pubs.
	This is the third January in a row during which the House has debated the regulation of pub companies. We know that pubs in our local communities are among our constituencies’ most precious assets, and a quick trawl through the press releases expressing MPs’ dismay at the fact that much-loved pubs in their area face closure will reveal immediately what an emotive issue this is, and how passionate our constituents feel about it.
	I know that Members on both sides of the House will agree that, economically, socially and culturally, pubs are part of the fabric of our great nation. As well as being community hubs, they make a huge contribution to our fragile economy. Each pub employs an average of 10 people—often young people; often women, including working mums—who are finding it particularly hard to obtain other work. When a pub closes, its local economy loses about £80,000. More widely, the production and
	sale of beer contributes about £19 billion to the United Kingdom’s GDP, and generates total taxation revenues of £10 billion each year.
	Given that a wide body of experts and more than 27,000 other people signed the 38 Degrees petition on pubco reform in just four days, today is one of those—some would argue—all too rare occasions in an MP’s life when he can vote for something that is both popular and right. In the last decade, our expectations of our locals have changed, and consumers now rank food higher than beer or sociability among their reasons for choosing a pub. As I know there is so much common ground between many Members across the House, I shall argue the case for reform in as unpartisan a way as I am capable of. [Laughter.]

Julian Huppert: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Toby Perkins: I will, on that conciliatory note.

Julian Huppert: I hope the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to take that step. He is right to say that there have been huge problems with pub closures, but as a result of new policies introduced by Liberal Democrat-led Cambridge city council, not only are pubs not closing, but previously closed pubs are able to reopen. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating the council on its excellent work, which has been supported by the Campaign for Real Ale and many other organisations?

Toby Perkins: Of course I welcome anyone taking a positive step in what is an incredibly difficult climate. At a time when there are so many pressures on pubs— 26 are now closing each week—anyone who is able to buck that trend will have our wholehearted support.

Barry Sheerman: I am possibly the only Member in the House who owns a pub. I am the chair of the John Clare Trust, which has bought the Exeter Arms, where Clare and his father used to sing and play. Unfortunately, it is closed at the moment, but we are determined to reopen it as a community pub.

Toby Perkins: I almost got carried away there, then my hon. Friend announced that his pub was in fact closed. However, the fact that his determination and vigour will ensure that it soon reopens gives us all a sense of enthusiasm and excitement.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), a former Enterprise Inns landlord himself, will have the honour of winding up the debate. I also want to salute the many other hon. Members who are here today and who have previously raised this issue in debates here or in the press, or joined campaigns in their communities to highlight the problems caused by aggressive pub company behaviour.
	In September 2011, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s fourth review of pub companies finally settled on the view that only a statutory code with a mandatory rent-only option would put the pubco relationship on a fairer footing. I was therefore disappointed by the suggestion in today’s Government amendment
	that Labour should have regulated this issue before. The Government will know that it was precisely because the Select Committee wanted to give the pubcos time to get their house in order that they were given a final chance in 2010, with a timetable that the Secretary of State supported when he first came into office.

Adrian Bailey: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that the Government are using the previous Government’s decision to abide by a Select Committee recommendation as an excuse to ignore the current Select Committee recommendation?

Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend’s intervention gives me an excellent opportunity to put on record my gratitude—and that of the whole House and the wider coalition supporting the reform—for his work as Chairman of the Select Committee, which has led the way on this issue. I entirely agree that it is odd that, with such a large body of opinion in favour of the reform, it has been so difficult for the Government to support the recommendation that the previous Government were behind and that this Government said in 2011 that they would support.

Alison Seabeck: Many people outside the House are clearly taking a great deal of interest in this debate. We have a lot of independent brewers in the south-west, and some fantastic beers are sold in the local pubs. Many publicans there have raised the issue of the way rents are passed on with little independent assessment. Is my hon. Friend going to say something about that?

Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend has successfully predicted what I am going to say. I will definitely touch on that issue, because it is one of the key elements of the debate.
	I also want to take this opportunity to reflect on some of the other contributions that have been made in the run-up to the debate by Members trying to support pubs in their area. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) has been a determined campaigner on this issue. Among his many valuable contributions to the campaign, his article in the Yorkshire Post on 10 May was on message enough for the Liberal Democrat press office to promote it with the message that
	“pubco terms are the biggest reason for pub closures”.
	That was his view in May 2013, as I know it remains. Now, eight months later, I am disappointed to see that he has signed the amendment proposing that the Government need more time to come to the conclusion he has so consistently and persuasively argued for.

Greg Mulholland: The hon. Gentleman might be disappointed, but I was disappointed that he has tabled this Opposition day motion. We have had a conversation about this. My belief is that support for this issue commands a majority in the House of Commons, and that we need to do this properly, rather than through an Opposition day debate. I look forward to getting the recommendation from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and, at that point, getting everyone on both sides of the House together to push this through.

Toby Perkins: I have tremendous respect for the hon. Gentleman, but those whose lives have been wrecked by the behaviour of the pub companies will look askance at the idea that, because of the nature of this debate, people will choose whether or not to vote for the motion. We had a Back-Bench debate on the issue two years ago, at which the motion was carried unopposed. However, the Government ignored it. In fact, it is only when the Opposition have brought pressure to bear that we seem to have achieved any movement on the issue. Today, in an entirely open and reasonable way, we are calling for all Members who feel strongly about this, as I know the hon. Gentleman does, to support the motion and give the Government the necessary impetus and the courage of their convictions to take the action that is so desperately needed.

Brian H Donohoe: One reason behind pub closures is the high taxation on spirits in general and on Scotch whisky in particular. Given that spirits and Scotch whisky account for 40% of the sales in pubs, and that the level of taxation continues to escalate, should not the Government look more closely at the inevitable loss of revenue involved?

Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are many aspects to the debate on the future of our pubs, but this debate is about the pub companies. I will therefore resist his offer to get drawn into what the shadow Chancellor should propose to do about the taxation of the Scottish whisky industry. However, my hon. Friend rightly identifies whisky as an important product for our pubs, for our economy and particularly for the Scottish economy. Whether the statistic that he has just given us lends any credence to Scottish people’s reputation for an enthusiasm for alcohol I will leave to Members to consider.

Bill Esterson: May I offer an example from my constituency to support the motion and illustrate the urgency of the matter? A constituent of mine moved into her pub a few years ago with the promise of significant investment being made in the property. Those repairs have never been carried out. She also has to buy her beer from the pub company; if she buys from elsewhere, the pub company fines her and charges her significantly more. Does not that illustrate why the motion is so important—particularly the part about rent-only tenancies—and why we need action now? Tenants such as my constituent cannot afford to wait any longer for action.

Toby Perkins: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
	I shall outline how we have arrived at this position. We have now seen the full scale of the revelations from the Select Committee in its four different reviews over eight years. Examples have also been given by many Members from across the House on behalf of their constituents. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) are all well-known champions of the cause. Just a little research has revealed many more.
	The hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has told the House about the landlords of the White Horse in Quidhampton, alleging that
	“Enterprise Inns signed them up to a lease on a false prospectus and…made their business completely uneconomic and unsustainable”.—[Official Report, 13 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 476.]
	The hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) has confirmed that
	“unsustainable rent demands…from Enterprise Inns”—[Official Report, 13 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 476.]
	led to the closure of the White Hart in South Harting. The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) has written to Enterprise Inns to inform it that the Abbots Mitre in Chilbolton was
	“under threat largely due to unrealistic rents and changes in terms and conditions.”
	The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) has written to Enterprise Inns asking it not to close the Lamplighters in Shirehampton.
	The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has bemoaned Enterprise’s decision not to save the Little Owl, saying that
	“a big company has failed to recognise a pub’s value to the community.”
	The hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) was also concerned with saving the Owl, this time the one in Rodley, whose threatened closure he blamed on
	“the mounting costs imposed by the building owners, Enterprise Inns”.
	The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who has recently written an excellent article in support of a mandatory free-of-tie option, has said of the sale of the Porcupine in Mottingham that the public were
	“incensed that their right to bid for the pub has been bypassed deliberately by Enterprise Inns and LiDL”.
	The right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire) told a packed crowd that he would be joining the campaign to save the Red Lion in Sidbury, which Punch Taverns was planning to sell. There are many more examples. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) joined the campaign that successfully saved the Wheatsheaf. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) was particularly busy: she was trying to save both the Clifton and the Star. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) campaigned to save the Bittern. The list goes on and on and on.
	Today we are faced with a choice. We can race to the aid of pubs in distress in our communities—pubs that are the symptoms of the great pubco disaster that plays out in every one of our constituencies and leads to job losses and the loss of a treasured community asset. We can sign the petitions; we can beg the pub companies to be fair this time; we can complain that the rents were too high or that the companies sold a false dream; we can rage against how they did not understand or seem to care about the impact on our communities; we can bemoan that they changed the rules; or, finally, we can act.

Andrew Selous: Televised sport, especially football, is very important to many pubs. I have had news today that a pub in my constituency is in difficulty because Sky Sports wanted
	to charge £1,250 a month to show Sky Sports in the pub. Has the hon. Gentleman had any thoughts as to how we can try to get sport into pubs more cheaply or increase competition so pubs can show sport, especially football?

Toby Perkins: The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I know that many pubs have an agonising decision to make about whether they continue to show sport, which is incredibly expensive but attracts a lot of people through the door. I am sure he raises this question looking forward this weekend to Sheffield United playing Fulham on BT Sport, which can be watched in most good public houses at about 1 o’clock on Sunday afternoon.
	The point the hon. Gentleman raises highlights the fact that the proposal we are discussing today is not a panacea for all the problems of the pub trade. If our motion is supported and the Government, with our support, swiftly bring forward regulation we can all back, it will not mean that all the problems will be solved and no more will be asked of Parliament. The sports issue is important and I will speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) about it, as he is putting forward Labour’s ideas on sport for the next manifesto.

Mark Tami: I recently met a landlord who has managed to turn around a failing pub and increase the turnover. His reward is for all the extra money to be taken away in increased rent. That destroys the incentive for people to work hard and bring these pubs back.

Toby Perkins: That is an important point, and we hear it time and again. Given the economic difficulties and the difference between on-trade and off-trade alcohol, people understand that there are going to be difficult times for pubs. They will also recognise that some people are not suited to running a pub and, for whatever reason, are unable to make a decent fist of it. What sticks in the craw of most fair-minded people, however, is that the majority of those who take on major pubco tenancies end up earning under £10,000 a year. It is not a case of a few people doing very well, a reasonable number making a decent living and a small number failing; we are seeing the majority failing. Under the existing perverse disincentives, regardless of whether the pub does well or badly, the pub company does all right, and many people say that even when their trade grew they got hit with higher rents or higher prices that took away all the increased revenue they had generated. It is clear that there is a desperate imperative to act.

Andrew Gwynne: My hon. Friend recently rattled off a great long list of Members on both sides of the House who have rightly campaigned on this issue. Does he share my disappointment that as long ago as last January he brought a debate to this House during which the Government performed a U-turn saying they would seek to introduce a statutory code, which is absolutely necessary, and we had a lengthy consultation, but very little in terms of the legal framework has changed 12 months on?

Toby Perkins: I certainly do share my hon. Friend’s disappointment. My sense is that there is a lot of sympathy on this issue across the House and I want to bring people together rather than tear us apart. It is fair to say that a year ago the Government did a U-turn. I was not disappointed with that at all; I was delighted. They told the House that were going to get on with the consultation. Many people were celebrating, and they went out drinking in the pubco pubs around the country that night. A few months later the consultation started and it finished about six months ago, yet despite the overwhelming response in favour of what we are proposing today and what the Government seemed minded to consider, we still have not actually had any action. We have not changed the situation on the ground for hard-pressed publicans and all those people who have seen their life-savings disappear and who want to know that the regime is going to improve for the people who follow them.
	As I was saying, we can bemoan the situation, we can join the campaigns, or we can act. We can take court action on the cause of the closures. We have within our grasp today the opportunity to prove that actions speak louder than words and stand united across the House on behalf of our communities, but also on behalf of the hundreds who are looking to us to act. In just four days since Friday, 26,762 people have signed the 38 Degrees petition on the great British pub scandal.
	CAMRA is an immensely important and well-respected body. It has the best interests of the pub in its heart and in its DNA; that is its raison d’être. It boasts a membership of almost 160,000, a staggering demonstration of the importance of real ale and pubs to people across our country. If I was seeking to make a political point, I might have mischievously pointed out that, with almost 160,000 members, CAMRA is bigger than the recently reported membership of the Conservative and Liberal Democrats parties combined, but as I said I wanted to be consensual, I am not going to mention that.
	We all know that a fairer relationship between pub companies and their landlords is not a panacea that will end all the challenges faced by the trade. There are others and there will continue to be asks of us in Parliament even if we take action on this scandal today, but the fact that we cannot solve every problem does not mean we should not solve this major one. From the Federation of Small Businesses to the GMB, from CAMRA to the Forum of Private Business, from Fair Pint and the all-party save the pub group to Unite the Union, a diverse coalition of interests has consistently called for a new statutory code of regulation.
	Let no one say that this House or the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee have rushed to judgment. Over four reports and eight exhaustive years, the Committee gave the major pub-owning companies every opportunity to make the changes that were needed to put their house in order, yet at every turn it found that the industry moved at a glacial pace, and always reluctantly, and only because of the scrutiny of the Committee.
	Although I want to pay tribute to everyone involved in the work of the Select Committee and to say that I think the work done on pubco is a shining example of the Select Committee system at its best, it should not have to be the role of a Committee not only to investigate an issue but to be the body that constantly has to chase to see whether the assurances made to it have been kept.
	Following the final 2011 Select Committee report, there was widespread disappointment when the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) came to the House to defend opting for a self-regulatory regime. In January 2012 this House felt it had seen enough. We believed that voluntary regulation had failed and we voted unanimously for a statutory code, a vote that was ignored by the Government. Frankly, at every stage it has felt as though the Opposition and the Select Committee, ably supported by Members across the House, have had to make the running.
	During oral questions to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in November 2012, there were three Labour pubco questions and it was suddenly announced that there would be an investigation into the success of self-regulation. A day before the Opposition day debate in 2013, the Government finally announced that they would consult on introducing a code to deliver a fairer balance between pub companies and their tenants. The response to the consultation was overwhelming: over 7,000 people responded, 96% were in favour of regulation, 67% were in favour of a mandatory free-of-tie option, 92% were in favour of open market rent assessment, and there was widespread support for a stronger independent adjudicator.
	The strength of feeling was overwhelming, with 91% of respondents who ran a pub saying that the beer tie was one of the three biggest challenges facing their business, and more than nine in 10 saying they would take a free-of-tie option even if it meant paying a higher rent. It is therefore a little odd for the Government to say, as they do in their amendment, that they want to take more time to learn from the consultation. They chose the questions to ask and they got a big response. On almost all the big questions, the level of support was so overwhelming that even Robert Mugabe would have thought it was a bit one-sided, yet the Government then commissioned a report from London Economics, which critics felt was deeply flawed, apparently to try to persuade themselves against the view they appeared to have taken before their consultation. Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the failure of the big pub companies than the desire to leave them on the part of the very people they consider to be their business partners. But for all the warm words expended on the Floor of this House and elsewhere, still nothing has changed in legal terms, and every week 26 pubs close.
	If the Government do not introduce a Bill on this issue in the Queen’s Speech, it is impossible to imagine that there will be sufficient parliamentary time to pass one in this Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said on Sunday’s “The Andrew Marr Show”, if this Government fail the challenge set them today, everyone who feels strongly about this issue will know that, for all the rhetoric, only voting for a Labour Government will bring about the fairness that so many people so desperately want. Hon. Members will today have an opportunity to choose whether to be part of the solution or, I am sad to say, part of the problem.
	There is no doubt that the existence of large pub companies, which own the vast majority of British pubs and often force their licensees to buy beer only from them, are distorting the market. As we consider their devastating impact, let us remember that 57% of Britain’s pubco publicans, people who often work among the longest hours of anyone in our communities, earn less
	than £10,000. The Federation of Small Businesses, brilliant advocates but hardly Marxist radicals, found in 2013 that a mandatory rent-only option would generate £78 million for the UK economy, that 98% of respondents would have more confidence in the success of their pubs and that almost 10,000 would take on extra staff or give their staff extra hours of work. Hon. Members will know that the FSB does not propose additional regulation lightly.
	My own Chesterfield pubs survey mirrored many of those encouraging statistics, but also sounded a deadly warning about the cost of inaction, with many pubs saying that they were on the brink of closure and that increased rents and beer prices were key issues. This morning, the British Beer & Pub Association claimed that tied tenants’ pubs were cheaper, but that is far removed from the reality that people see in their community. At The Nags Head in Dunston in Chesterfield, I dealt with a Marston’s tenant who was competing with Marston’s managed houses just across the road that were selling the same product at up to £1 a pint less. The big pub companies and the BBPA will tell us, “Yes, there is the odd problem, but it is not typical.” They say, “You can’t offer general criticisms. We need to know about specific cases.” However, when we bring them specific cases they say, “Well, that’s just a one-off.” It seems that no evidence is good enough for them to recognise the reality of what people are seeing in their pubs. The BBPA and the pub companies are saying, “Mainly its just people who have failed in their businesses wanting to blame someone else.” I do not think that stands up to any sensible scrutiny.
	Many businesses and industries have undergone tough times, particularly in the past five years or so, but they have not all universally claimed that they have been misled by their suppliers. Corner shops have closed, but MPs are not besieged by former Londis or Spar shopkeepers claiming they have been ripped off by Londis or Spar. People in business generally know the difference between tough market conditions and plainly misleading practices.
	On that note, the BIS consultation last year was sobering reading for anyone who thought that the threat of regulation would cause the industry leopards to change their spots. It told of a married couple who produced a careful budget plan before signing a lease, only to find on the day they received the keys that their pub company increased the prices, meaning the couple can only afford to pay themselves one salary. We also heard about the couple who ploughed—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I say gently to the hon. Gentleman, to whose speech I am listening with close attention and great interest, that I know he will want to take into account the fact that several hon. Members on both sides of the House also wish to take part?

Toby Perkins: That has been preoccupying me for several minutes, Mr Speaker. None the less, I would not like the couple who ploughed their life savings into acquiring a pub only to find the agreed credit order with their pubco was unilaterally withdrawn, leaving the business in ruins, to be left out of my contribution. I am glad that they found their way in.
	Our motion calls for three key steps to be taken that will ultimately lead to a better future for Britain’s boozers. First, we need a mandatorv free-of-tie option. The beer
	tie, whereby landlords can buy products only from their pubco, works for some licensees, but for many others it means that they can buy only limited products at inflated prices. We want every landlord to have the choice of whether to go free of tie. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), whom we all miss terribly, although she will be back with us soon, has previously said that she is
	“committed to stamping out abuse of the beer tie”.
	Clearly, there is only one way to do that.
	The Government have previously committed to the principle that no landlord should be worse off than they would be in an otherwise free-of-tie pub, but the behaviour of the pub companies suggests to me that that will not happen without allowing the market to decide. Members who are worrying that such a measure would go against their free market principles should have no fear. What the pubcos are defending is an old- fashioned closed shop, whereas what we are proposing is a genuinely competitive market solution that stands up for the rights of the small entrepreneur.
	Secondly, we need independent rent reviews. When a new licensee takes over a pub, or when an existing rent contract expires and is renegotiated, there should be a fully transparent and independent rent review, completed by a qualified surveyor. That would deal with so many of the horror stories that we have heard in this debate and previously.
	Finally, there must be a truly independent body to monitor the regulations and adjudicate in disputes between licensees and pubcos. There is little confidence in how PICAS, the Pubs Independent Conciliation and Arbitration Service, or PIRRS, the Pubs Independent Rent Review Scheme, are operating, with many of the people going through the PICAS process unhappy with the outcome.
	Those are our tests, which are grounded in the principles of building a market that works, with rules to prevent restrictive practices and big companies unfairly using their size in an uncompetitive way. I know that Members across the House share this vision, so let us unite today behind this vital British industry and this vital British institution, and deliver the change that publicans, licensees, business groups, trade unionists, beer enthusiasts and the great British public are crying out for. I commend the motion to the House.

Vincent Cable: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
	“welcomes the opportunity to debate the issue of fairness in the relationship between publicans and pub owning companies; notes the concerns, acknowledged by the Government in January 2013, about the failure of pub company self-regulation to rebalance risk and reward between the companies and their tenants and lessees; recognises the excellent work and the four Reports that the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee and predecessor Committees have produced over the years on this issue; further notes that the previous Government failed to take any position on this important issue until February 2010, just two months before the dissolution of Parliament and the end of its term in office; further notes that this Government held the first ever consultation to explore how best to protect tenants and lessees through a statutory code of practice backed by an independent adjudicator;
	further notes that this consultation received a very large response and that it is right that the Government carefully considers the huge volume of the evidence received as part of this consultation before publishing its response as soon as it can in 2014.”.
	I welcome the opportunity to debate, again, fairness in the relationship between publicans and pub-owning companies, on which, at least on the broad principle, there is a wide measure of agreement. Perhaps I might thank the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) for what, by his standards, must rank as a calm and consensual introduction. I wrote down the word “statesmanlike” at one point, but that was probably a bit excessive, so we will save it for another occasion.
	My own approach to the matter is slightly coloured by the fact that I have only just stepped off an aeroplane from a part of the world where tasting alcohol is likely to lead someone into prison, if they are lucky. Indeed, I spent yesterday evening in a bar where the most potent drinks on offer were “mocktails”. At least in this country we do value our pubs, not simply for the drinks but for the fact that this is a major industry, with a large number of small and medium-sized companies. The people who run them are hard-working and not well paid. Hundreds of thousands of people work in the industry, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, makes a contribution to the communities in which we live.
	The central issue in the debate is not about the principles, which we have debated before and on which there is a lot of common ground, but, “Why the delay? Why have the Government not given a formal response?” Let me explain the point. We received a big response to the consultation, which, let us remember, was the first Government consultation on a specific set of proposals in the long period, under both Governments, during which the issue has been considered by the Select Committee and others. We had a formal consultation, to which there was a massive response. We received about 9,000 responses, more than 1,000 of which were very specific—they were often written communications with nuanced arguments, which we must try to address. We are trying to look at the evidence in an objective way. The evidence may well point in one direction, but there are competing studies; the London Economics survey has been mentioned, but another good study has been done by the Federation of Small Businesses. Such studies do give different arguments, which we must evaluate.
	Let us also remember that the industry is a complex one, and it was not a simple “yes or no” issue. The consultation also covered a set of other issues, including flow monitoring, guest beer and the gaming tie, each of which must be examined properly, not to mention its open question, which was about the mandatory free-of-tie option and open market rent review. Everybody concerned with the matter knows that that is the core issue, on which, although there was a strong opinion, there was less unanimity. We must respond to those issues and try to come forward with a proposal that carries the House and as many of the stakeholders as possible. I am very conscious of the legislative timetable, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no attempt to delay on those grounds. We want to see action, but first we must provide a thorough and proper response to the consultation. Of course we have already released the evidence.

Simon Danczuk: There is a lot of cross-party support for this matter, but I get the impression that the Government are taking for granted my good
	nature and that of other hon. Members. Will the Liberals go into the next general election having done absolutely nothing on this important issue?

Vincent Cable: The simple one-word answer is no, but we will wait to hear the Government’s response.

Adrian Bailey: Will the Secretary of State be bringing forward legislation on this matter before May 2015?

Vincent Cable: As I have said, I cannot anticipate exactly what the Government will say in their official response, but the whole purpose of the consultation was to seek views on legislative action, and our response will be built around that set of questions.

Laurence Robertson: I have a lot of sympathy for what has been said in the debate so far, but I am a little troubled by suggestions that this problem arose only in May 2010. I had an Adjournment debate on the issue during the previous Parliament, and a number of other debates were also held, but nothing was ever done. My right hon. Friend was right to suggest that this is not a simple issue.

Vincent Cable: I thank my hon. Friend, who remembers such things from his time in the House, for his reminder. We have, I think, had four Select Committee reports under different Governments. The matter has been actively debated for something in the order of eight years, and we have moved quickly on it in comparison with what went before.

Jim Shannon: The failure of the pub companies to self-regulate underlines the need for an adjudicator, as does the fact that a number of pubs are closing. Does the Minister not feel that there is a sense of urgency in relation to bringing in legislation?

Vincent Cable: As I will say later—we have covered the matter in earlier debates—we did try to encourage self-regulation. We drew the conclusion that the action had not been adequate, which is why we moved on to proposals for statutory regulation on which we are now consulting. We have been down that road; we have tried that.

Henry Bellingham: I agree with the Secretary of State that it is important that we get this right. I must impress on him that there is a degree of urgency now with the forthcoming Queen’s Speech. Does he agree that we should recognise the fantastic job that local organisations, such as the Campaign for Real Ale group, are doing? In my area, CAMRA has pioneered a number of pub salvations, working with the community to ensure that the King’s Arms at Shouldham and the Dabbling Duck at Great Massingham were able to survive.

Vincent Cable: My hon. Friend is right to remind us that this is not simply a top-down campaign. It involves not just Parliament, but an enormous grass-roots campaign. I am talking about community organisations, and I will go on to develop that point in a moment.

Ian Lucas: The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. Will he confirm that he now believes that statutory regulation is necessary?

Vincent Cable: That was the purpose of the Government consultation. Statutory regulation was necessary, and we consulted on how to do it. We are now evaluating the results of that process. The House will soon hear our conclusions on how to take the matter forward.
	Let me repeat my appreciation for the work that has been done by Members from all parts of the House. I also thank the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, whose Chairman is here, and the various campaigning groups for their work on the matter. It would not be amiss to single out Fair Deal For Your Local, which is the campaign that has been mobilised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). As part of his campaign, he has brought together CAMRA, the Federation of Small Businesses and the GMB union as well as various other groups. We are talking about local and national groups across industry and across the country.

Toby Perkins: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and for what he said about me being a statesman. If I may, I will press him on the timetable issue that has been raised. If he accepts that statutory regulation of some sort is necessary and the consultation overwhelmingly supports the majority of such aspects, will he at least commit to some sort of legislative action in the next Queen’s Speech, and will he say that we will not get to the end of this Parliament with nothing having changed?

Vincent Cable: I cannot really add to what I have already said. The hon. Gentleman knows that we are following a process. I am conscious of the legislative timetable, and he will remember—indeed it is the whole purpose of this debate—that the Government did not consult in an open-ended way over this question; we consulted on a specific proposal to introduce statutory regulation, and that is what we are responding to. Although I am conscious of the legislative timetable, I will not give a specific date on which this report will be concluded.

Robin Walker: As a member of the Select Committee, I urge the Secretary of State to take action as soon as possible, but I do understand the need to listen to the consultation. A moment ago, he mentioned some of the broad campaigning that has gone into this matter, and the organisation Fair Deal For Your Local, which I support. Does he agree that it is unfair of Opposition Members to suggest that this Government have done nothing for pubs when we have paid attention to the important campaign to end the unfair and job-destroying beer duty escalator?

Vincent Cable: Indeed. I will go on to talk about some of the things that the Government have done to help the pub industry, the most important of which is the tax measure. The combination of the 1p cut and the abolition of the escalator is the equivalent of 4p on a pint. There have also been various other measures to support community pubs, of which my hon. Friend will be well aware.

Rushanara Ali: I have two points to make. One relates to the many pubs in my constituency and the curry industry, which is worth about £4 billion, and the other to the inter-relationship between beer and curry. What assessment has the Secretary of State’s Department made of the impact on pubs and the alcohol and restaurant industries of the increase in VAT to 20%?

Vincent Cable: Just about every aspect of the fiscal and economic implications for this industry has been exhaustively reviewed, and I will try to find out the answer to that specific question from the various studies that have been done. I do not think that we have specifically analysed the interaction between beers and curries, but I am sure that there is a positive correlation.

Margaret Ritchie: Will the Secretary of State urge his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to give full consideration in advance of the Budget to a reduction in VAT on the hospitality industry, as it is urgently required not only in Northern Ireland but by the British Hospitality Association?

Vincent Cable: I have met the hospitality industry and it has set out its case for a VAT reduction. As the hon. Lady will know, I do not make the decisions on what goes into the Budget on tax measures. I am sure that there are many other claims on the Budget in terms of tax reduction and spending. Certainly, the hospitality industry has been very effective in making its case.

Andrew Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for the measured way in which he is considering all the responses to the consultation. Does he understand the concerns raised by the Office of Fair Trading about the free-of-tie proposal as outlined in the consultation? It claims that it will increase rents and the price of beer and lead to the closure of more pubs.

Vincent Cable: I have not seen those comments by the Office of Fair Trading, but I will certainly look for them. I am rather surprised by them because the whole purpose of that option is to increase competition and market forces. If my hon. Friend could send me the details, I would be interested to see the response of the competition authorities.

Barry Sheerman: As I own a pub, I have a great interest in this debate; I am chair of the John Clare Trust and we will be bringing this pub back to life through crowdfunding. The Secretary of State might not have control of the Budget, but he knows that there is a consultation on crowdfunding regulation. If we get that regulation wrong, it will stop a lot of community enterprises funding themselves, so will he ensure that it is appropriate?

Vincent Cable: I am well aware of the importance of crowdfunding, and the hon. Gentleman might have followed the progress of the business bank, which is now actively engaged in, and supporting, crowdfunding, certainly through the peer-to-peer lending streams. I am aware of the issues with the regulation. Some incumbents, understandably, want their industry regulated, but we need to balance that against the fact that new companies coming into the industry might be less enthusiastic
	about regulation. Incumbents such as Funding Circle have made a very good case for sensible, moderate regulation.
	Let me move on. As I said, we have had four Select Committee investigations into whether the tied model is at the root of the unfairness in the relationship. We have received an enormous amount of correspondence, quite apart from that received from the various action groups, from tenants about problems in their relationships with pub companies and from MPs. The response I have had in the past 10 to 15 minutes shows how widespread such concerns are.
	Although pub-owning companies can and sometimes do treat their tenants well, the overall sense from those representations is that the tie arrangements with the pub-owning companies are unfair and that a lack of transparency causes a severe imbalance of negotiating power. That is the essence of the problem. There is an issue about what exactly we should do about it, which is what we are consulting on, but there is no doubt about the problems.
	It has also been very clear from the discussions led by the Select Committee over the years that the problem is not so much the tied business model but the unfairness with which it operates. There is quite a lot of debate about the evidence on the speed of closures and how they operate in the tied sector and the non-tied sector. My understanding is that there has been a fairly steady rate of decline, from some 70,000 pubs in 1980 to 50,000 today. Depressingly, that is something in the order of 18 a week net. That decline has continued even after some of the big changes that have taken place in the industry—from the beer orders to pub company consolidation. I know that there is a debate among campaigners about whether tied pubs are more likely to close than pubs that are free of tie, but the evidence I have seen goes both ways. This is not fundamentally an argument about pub closures; it is essentially about the unfairness of and inequalities in the relationship.

Duncan Hames: My right hon. Friend is right to broaden his critique beyond the tie itself, important though that is. In my constituency, the landlord of a pub in Melksham complains that Punch is in breach of its own code of practice and of the framework of the British pub industry. He asks where else he can go under the current arrangements, without statutory regulation, when he finds that he gets no joy from the self-regulatory system on a range of issues from dilapidation surveys to meetings that are not minuted.

Vincent Cable: As I said earlier, there were more than 1,000 individual responses to the consultation. Many described very similar stories to the one that my hon. Friend has just mentioned.

Jim Shannon: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Vincent Cable: May I move on, as the hon. Gentleman has intervened once already?
	Just as this is not primarily an issue about the rate of closures, I think we would all agree that it is not fundamentally an issue of consumer choice. Otherwise, the competition authorities would have been engaged a long time ago. It has already been shown that the share of microbreweries has increased over the period for
	which many pubs have been under a great deal of stress. The number of breweries now tops 1,000, the highest figure since the 1930s.
	The conclusion that I think we have all reached is that there are issues with the beer tie, but that is not the fundamental problem in itself. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee argued that it does not want to see the tie model disappear. Under proper conditions, it is a business model that can be used and it has been around in various forms since the 18th century. The abuses are a different matter and are due in part to the lack of transparency in the relationship between the pub-owning companies and their tenants, which is what I want to turn to.

Pauline Latham: I was recently contacted by my constituent, Claire, who has been told by her landlords, Enterprise Inns, that the rent on her pub, the Pattenmakers Arms in Duffield, will increase by 42% in April. Claire loves her pub and has brought it from being a grubby and run-down pub to an award winner; she even worked while she was battling breast cancer. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the pub companies whose business practices force out committed publicans such as Claire will be dealt with effectively by some sort of adjudicator?

Vincent Cable: That is a truly awful case. I hope to see the details of that example, because although we have a lot of cases, it seems to be a particularly bad one. I guess that would be one of the factors that led the Government to conclude that the voluntary code approach was not satisfactory, as presumably it has already been used.
	The voluntary approach did have some positive outcomes, such as the Pubs Independent Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the framework code, but the conclusion we came to at the beginning of last year was that the changes had not gone far enough and that problems persisted. To us, the essential point is best captured in the work done by CAMRA that suggests that 57% of tied tenants earn less than £10,000 a year. If we apply that to 35-hour week, 48 weeks a year, we are talking about less than £6 an hour, which means that people are working for considerably less than the minimum wage. Since many work much longer hours, that means that this is a very low-paid industry. Many publicans are struggling. In contrast, only 25% of those who are free of tie are on at the same income level. There is a striking disparity, which is at the heart of the question.

Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State is being very generous in giving way. Does he agree that many of these disputes need to go to adjudication? Does he share my view and that of many colleagues that getting an adjudication system in place as soon as possible is essential?

Vincent Cable: Indeed. That was the objective of the consultation. Let me briefly reveal the history, as we have been talking about it implicitly throughout these exchanges. We announced last January that it was time for the Government to step in and the consultation was launched along the lines envisaged by the Select Committee on a statutory code of practice and an independent adjudicator. That was the framework of the Government recommendation. We included an open question on the
	mandatory free-of-tie option with open rent review and we tried to underpin a specific intervention with a framework, a philosophy, a set of principles, the overarching fair-dealing provision and the core principle that a tied tenant should be no worse off than a free-of-tie tenant.

Julie Hilling: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, he is being very generous. Does he recognise that because of the relationship between the licensee and the pub companies, whatever the licensee does means in some circumstances that the pub company asks them for more money? If they put on food, for example, the pub company increases their rent. The relationship is fundamentally unequal and difficult.

Vincent Cable: The hon. Lady is stating in her own way what I have already said several times and what I think is the consensus. There is an imbalance in the relationship, which is not equal. The market does not deliver a fair outcome, which is why we are considering how we can change it.
	We did not want to reopen the fundamental issue about the pub tie, but to decide how to address the unfairness of it, and the consultation revealed the depth of feeling on the subject, which all the interventions that we have had so far have reinforced. The responses came not just from the pubcos and the tenants, but from supply chain companies, consumer groups and trade bodies, all of which fed into the consultation, and they were so many and diverse that we published them just before Christmas so that hon. Members were aware of what was being said before we came to a conclusion on how to respond.
	As I have said already, we want to respond as quickly as possible. We fully understand the problems, not just because distressing cases are continuing but because people in the industry want clarity, and it is perfectly reasonable for people to want regulatory certainty. We do not want to rush into a decision. We want to get this right, but we realise that there is some urgency because people need to make investment decisions. We are trying to get this absolutely right and we want the intervention that we make to be proportionate and properly targeted.

Paul Blomfield: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for taking a further intervention and for all the others that he has taken. He makes the case for urgency, which is reflected across the House. Does he not accept that his failure to answer the question from the shadow Minister and the Chair of Select Committee, together with the wording of the Government’s amendment, will be seen widely throughout the country as an attempt simply to kick this issue into the long grass? Will he reassure the House that that is not the case by giving a commitment that legislation will come forward in this Parliament?

Vincent Cable: There is no attempt to kick this into the long grass. We are trying to do this properly. I can assure him that it will be dealt with in a timely way. We are not cutting corners. As I said at the beginning, we have a large number of responses and different strands of evidence that we are trying to reconcile and respond to properly. We must do this right.
	The whole issue of the beer tie, the relationship with the pubcos, is crucial, and we must take action in the way that we have discussed, but it is not the only set of measures for the pub industry. We are sometimes in danger of losing sight of the bigger picture. Thanks to interventions from Government Members there was reference to the budgetary measures that have been taken, and I would add to that the action taken on business rates, including the capping of the business rate increase, the continuation of business rate relief, the £1,000 discount for retail outlets, which include pubs, and some of the action taken by my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, for example the pub is the hub scheme and the community right to bid to keep pubs open. A lot needs to happen and a lot is happening on a broad front, and I reassure the House of my commitment, which remains as strong as ever, to addressing the unfairness in the relationship between pub companies and their tenants.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. A large number of Members wish to take part in the debate, which is due to finish at 4 o’clock, including the Front-Bench winding-up speeches. I ask each Member to speak for no more than 10 minutes, including interventions, so that we can fit everybody in. If that does not happen, there will have to be a time limit.

Paul Murphy: In the last three Januarys, including this one, I have written to Mr Speaker to ask to speak in a debate on pub companies. In all three debates—I assume this one as well—there has been unanimity across the House of Commons on what measures need to be taken. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and, although he is not here, the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), and many others too, right across the political spectrum, who regard this as a very serious and important issue. There have been two unanimous votes in the House of Commons on this, although on the second one it took 24 hours before the Secretary of State decided that he agreed with the House of Commons, and he came along and gave us great assurances of what would happen.
	There have been four Select Committee reports, more or less all arguing for the same course of action. Enormous numbers of people from our constituencies—I think of Mr Phil Jones who owns the Open Hearth in Griffithstown in my constituency—have written to us about the iniquities of the system. A large number of organisations support the basis of the Opposition motion, including the GMB, CAMRA and the Federation of Small Businesses—a whole host of them. The essence of it is that they all say—I understand that the Secretary of State agrees with this—that first of all there should be a statutory code of practice; secondly, a mandatory rent-only option for pubcos that own more than 500 pubs; thirdly, an open market rent review; and finally, an independent adjudicator. All those are meant to enhance the significance and importance of the role of pubs in our communities.
	That has already been mentioned a number of times, and I am sure will continue to be throughout the course of the debate.
	A new institution that has come into the debate, which many hon. Members will have read about, is the Local Government Association, which talked about the importance of pubs in our communities, and, as the Secretary of State mentioned, the importance of the community right to bid for pubs. But the essence of my contribution is not what has been said and will be said, but why we have had a delay, which strikes at the heart of what was said by the Secretary of State—who clearly is not listening to me, but perhaps other hon. Members are.
	The Secretary of State presides over one of the largest Departments in the Government. He has an army of officials and civil servants and a little army of junior Ministers. He tells us today that the reason why this has been delayed is that the consultation is so enormous, so vast and so unwieldy that they cannot make up their minds as to what to do, but in the same speech he admits that this was not an open-ended consultation. This was a consultation on the basis of the Government not having made up their mind but being very close to making up their mind on what the solution should be. In many ways it was a closed consultation, making it much easier.

Andrew Griffiths: I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s desire for movement and to see some improvement in this matter, but does he not accept that in 13 years of his Government, despite 6,000 pubs closing in the last three years alone, they did nothing at all, apart from a few weeks before the general election, when, amazingly, something appeared in the manifesto? Does he understand that at least this Government are listening to the consultation and looking to make some changes for the good?

Paul Murphy: Of course I accept that Labour could have done more when we were in government, but after three debates in the House of Commons during the last three years, and when the Government have already said that they want to take these matters into legislation, they are now using the excuse of a consultation being too burdensome to allow them to make up their mind. If we were at the beginning of a parliamentary Session, that would not be too bad, but we are not. We are 15 months away from a general election. We are possibly just months away from a Queen’s Speech. When my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield referred to the fact that this had been kicked into touch, perhaps he had a point. Unless the Government make up their mind relatively soon, time will run out and nothing will happen between now and the general election.

Jim Shannon: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good case. With some 50% of pubco licensees reporting earnings of less than £10,000 and 26 pubs a week closing—a different figure from that mentioned by the Secretary of State—time is not on our side. Urgency is needed. We need to have the legislation in place before the next election.

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The purpose of this debate is not to argue for or against the proposals, because last year the Secretary of State said that he agreed with them. He said that he did not
	believe in the voluntary system and that a proper system of regulation was needed, and I believe he genuinely believes that. He represents moderation in the Cabinet and, some might argue, social democracy.

Barry Sheerman: And sanity.

Paul Murphy: Indeed. In which case he would be opposed to the big energy companies, the shenanigans of the bankers and—I believe that he is—the way the pub companies operate, which is to the detriment of the small and medium-sized enterprises that are our pubs. I therefore think that he is on our side.
	However, I know from my years in government that things can be delayed for other reasons, even if Ministers pretend that it is because the consultation exercise is too big to handle. I think that the Secretary of State is meeting opposition from Cabinet colleagues, maybe from the Treasury and maybe from the top. The consultation ended months ago and the timetable is now tight, and I do not believe for one second that the delay is being caused by anything other than Government disagreement, whoever it is from.
	The longer the delay continues, the greater the damage to public houses in our communities. Some 26 pubs a week are closing. The pub companies themselves have caused thousands upon thousands to close. Some of those closed pubs have now been taken over by big companies and turned into shops—I think Tesco has taken over 130 in the past few months. When we bear in mind the importance of pubs to our communities, we realise that the longer the delay continues, the worse the situation will get.
	The Secretary of State has the power to change that. He could persuade his colleagues—that is where the problem is coming from—on how to change those things. Unless he does so, all the promises that he was forced to make last year, which I believe he thinks are right, will come to nought.

Chuka Umunna: What puzzles the Opposition is the fact that the Secretary of State has accepted in principle the need for a legislative code, so I do not understand why he is unable to commit today to taking legislative action by at least the end of this Parliament, given that that is what he is consulting on. Does my right hon. Friend, like me, fail to understand why we are not seeing that commitment from the Secretary of State?

Paul Murphy: I repeat that I think the reason is that he is encountering opposition within the Government.
	The Secretary of State is right that things have changed. Having been a Cabinet Minister for eight years and having dealt with all sorts of consultations, my experience is that we must of course take them seriously and look at the pros and cons, but he had already made up his mind, more or less, before the consultation was done. The consequence of all that is that he has to battle on. He has to get back into the Cabinet Committees and persuade his colleagues that this is important. Let us ensure that in the Queen’s Speech there is a proper Bill to put right what is clearly wrong.

Chloe Smith: I, too, welcome the debate. It is not the first time we have looked at the topic. I am in favour of the amendment, because I believe that the Government are taking action and that it is important to do that well, rather than rushing for reasons of political expediency. It is important to start by echoing the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) made, which was that the previous Government did not act. They seemingly did something only two months before the 2010 general election. By contrast, this Government have taken the trouble to go through a large consultation process, which has been acknowledged to be very popular. I know that many of my constituents have responded to it. It is important that the Government offer a high-quality response.

Adrian Bailey: The hon. Lady said that the previous Government did not act. Will she acknowledge that they did not act because the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s 2009 report did not recommend that legislation should be introduced?

Chloe Smith: I defer to the hon. Gentleman, who chairs that Committee, and leave it to him to explain its actions to the House.
	I want to focus first on the proposals set out in the consultation. It is right to put in place a system to stop pub companies abusing the beer tie. It is good to look at having an adjudicator who can help tied pubs. It is also good to have independently chosen guest beers, which helps to support connected industries and manufacturing across the UK.
	In the time I have been a Member of this House, like every Member present this afternoon, I have become well aware of the situation facing pubs in my constituency. I could talk about the Bull at Hellesdon, an Enterprise inn, which is a good pub at the heart of the community. In fact, that was one of the first pieces of casework I took up as a new Member of Parliament. I could also talk about the Maid’s Head in Old Catton, which is also an Enterprise inn. It hosts an enormous charity fundraiser—a walk around the ring road in Norwich. The only other hon. Member who might have done that is my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright). It is that kind of activity that puts pubs at the heart of the community, and rightly so.
	I also take my cue from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), who noted the role of the Campaign for Real Ale in supporting and campaigning for pubs. CAMRA runs the large Norwich beer festival, which in turn makes large charitable donations, most recently to the Norfolk and Norwich Association for the Blind. The Norwich Evening News is also running its strong Love Your Local campaign. By focusing on a pub a week, it does something very practical to help what can be quite a beleaguered trade.
	I think we all acknowledge that pubs are facing tough times because many of their customers are facing tough times. There is a far broader debate to be had in that respect. We might look at many long and short-term economic factors, for example, but we would also do well to recognise the other things that our constituents talk to us about, such as the introduction of the smoking
	ban, which is commonly thought to have changed the pub trade quite a lot, and competition from supermarkets, which I will talk about later. I have always believed that good pubs can do good trade, regardless of some of those external conditions. I also want to reiterate the point that pubs are at the heart of the community.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is making some good points. Does she agree that pubs can also help themselves to improve trade by broadening the services they offer, for example by offering food and, importantly, free internet for customers?

Chloe Smith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That point will resonate up and down the land in urban, suburban and rural pubs and communities alike.

Neil Carmichael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to point out that the Red Lion in Arlingham would have been closed by a pubco but is still open and now owned by the community. That is a good example of communities taking charge of their destiny and that of their pubs.

Chloe Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. I recently made the acquaintance of another landlord in his constituency who not only runs a good pub, but thinks that my hon. Friend is doing a good job as his local MP, which I think is very important.
	The value that pubs can give to their communities has been quantified in various places. I want to mention a few figures which have a bearing on the debate. The industry is said to sustain 900,000 jobs nationally and each pub contributes £100,000 a year to its local economy. Crucially, about 30% of the industry is owned by the pub companies, and it is that segment that we are talking about. I support action to make that segment of the market fairer.

Simon Danczuk: The hon. Lady is making an important speech, but my point is about urgency. Twelve months ago, I raised concerns about the Hunters Rest in my constituency. Mary Spence, the landlady, said that because of the tie she was paying £500 a week over the odds, which equates to £26,000 a year. She threw in the towel in November. Does the hon. Lady agree that this shows the importance of the Government taking urgent action?

Chloe Smith: I have already said that I agree with the Government taking the action that they are correctly taking. The hon. Gentleman gives a solid example of one of the very human effects that we are talking about.
	I want to note a couple of other ways in which the pub trade is being supported, including scrapping the beer duty escalator and a set of community rights. The community right to bid gives communities a fairer chance to bid to take over pubs, but there is an issue connected to this that I recently came across in my constituency. Residents were shocked to discover, at the very latest hour, that the Beehive in Sprowston had changed hands from regional brewery and pub company Greene King to the East of England Co-operative Society’s retail arm. I am the kind of MP who runs
	surgeries in pubs—I run a series called Politics in the Pub—and I am sad to report that I had never made it to the Beehive when this news broke. Now I may never have the chance to have a pint and some politics in the Beehive—unless I prefer a pint of milk, which is not necessarily the sort of thing I am thinking of.
	On 6 January, the Co-op confirmed to the Norwich Evening News that it had exchanged contracts on the Beehive and would announce plans for a new community food store in the near future. Local residents then quickly organised and held public meetings, and local councillors and I met residents to go through the options for using the community right to bid. In this case, however, it was too late because information about the sale emerged at a very late stage. I have asked the Co-op to provide information about its plans so that it can engage with the community at an early stage. Understandably, the community is concerned not only about the closure and loss of a pub but the potential effect of a supermarket on other local businesses, as well any intrusive aspects of the new premises that might arise from parking, lighting or similar things.
	I know from experience that the Co-op’s retail arm is extremely keen to work with local communities, and I urge it to do so in this case so that the necessary issues can be properly addressed, despite the fact that planning permission is not required for a change of use from A4—which, as Members will know, is for pubs—to A1 for supermarkets. That feature of the planning system involves a very easy switch, which sometimes means that communities are not consulted on the concerns that can accrue when a pub closes.
	I urge the Minister to look at this set of issues as it connects to pub companies. This is not only about the relationship between a tenant and their proprietor but the relationship of a pub to its community and the relationships that ought to be examined in the planning system—in other words, what citizens ought to be able to expect in a well-planned local area. These issues come down to wanting to keep the economy moving. I do not say that there should be stasis throughout the whole planning system, but there should be sufficient safeguards and community involvement in planning.
	I support the Government’s amendment, because action has been taken to help pubs not only on the issues addressed in the consultation on an adjudicator and more, but in the field of community rights. That is very important, but, on behalf of my constituents, I am looking for the final element of fairness to enter into the debate.

Adrian Bailey: This is a debate that I never thought we would need to have again. Last year, we were given assurances that a statutory code would be introduced; a year later, there is still no sign of it. The motion reflects the sense of exasperation felt by Labour Members—and perhaps privately by many Government Members—about the lack of progress on this issue.

Toby Perkins: Does my hon. Friend share my fear that we will potentially be back here another year to have yet another debate? I am pencilling that into my diary.

Adrian Bailey: Absolutely. The only debate I want to see again is on the proposed legislation when it comes forward —if it ever does. I would add to the sense of exasperation a sense of bafflement as to why that has not happened.
	The work done by successive BIS Committees has had two characteristics: first, the overwhelming desire to get the industry into a position where it would regulate itself; and secondly, the need to ensure unanimity across all political parties on the measures to be proposed. Successive reports said what needed to be done, what progress—often very little—had been made, and what would happen to the industry if it did not regulate itself. It has been said in this debate—indeed, it is mentioned in the amendment—that the previous Government did not do anything, as if that is some sort of justification for this Government not doing something. In the conclusion to its 2010 report, the Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff), said:
	“The industry must be aware that this is its last opportunity for self-regulated reform. If it cannot deliver this time, then government intervention will be necessary. We do not advocate such intervention at this stage, but remain committed to a resolution to all the problems discussed in this Report and those of the 2004 and 2009 Reports. Should those problems persist beyond June 2011, we will not hesitate to recommend that legislation to provide statutory regulation be introduced.”
	Significantly, it was never intended that there should be statutory regulation until all other procedures had been exhausted in 2011. The previous Government committed themselves to that course of action, as did the current Secretary of State when he came into office. Yet still, after all these years, we have not had statutory regulation despite the overwhelming body of evidence that clearly demonstrates that the industry was not prepared to regulate itself. I give credit to my colleague on the Committee, the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), whom I think would have vigorously expounded similar views today but had an unavoidable commitment and was therefore unable to be here. I emphasise that successive Committees have tried to secure a consensus across the board on this.
	Like other Members, I was delighted when the Secretary of State changed his position and agreed to have a Government consultation. That took place in the early part of last year, and the Government have had the results since June. Again, there is an increasing sense of exasperation as to why those results have not been published. All right, it was the Government’s own consultation, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) said, the Secretary of State has the people to analyse it, and there appears to be no coherent logic as to why it has been delayed for so long. When the consultation was published, the Committee was asked whether it would have a session looking at it, as though it were the Committee’s job to analyse it. We refused in somewhat robust manner.
	I will give the Government credit for one thing—they are perhaps the one organisation to have made the British Beer and Pub Association’s speed of operation look positively dynamic. I can think of no reason whatever why they could not have introduced legislation soon after the consultation process was concluded. There was nothing dramatically different in the consultation from the evidence unearthed by Select Committees or the points made in debates in the Chamber. The Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013 could provide a model for
	that legislation. Although there might be different opinions on different recommendations in the Select Committee report, it would have been appropriate to put those recommendations in legislation and have a debate on them in the Chamber. The different opinions are not in themselves an excuse for legislation not having been brought forward.
	I wish to emphasise the sense of embarrassment that I feel, as the Select Committee Chair, about the fact the all the work that has been done over the years still shows no tangible result. My sense of exasperation is reflected by tenants up and down the country, who want to know what is happening and why parliamentarians support the pubs in their constituencies in debate after debate but do not seem prepared to vote to bring forward legislation to do something about the situation. I know that some Government Members have been even more vigorous than I have in upholding the need for legislation to be introduced quickly. The public at large and pub tenants will be mystified as to why they are not prepared to back the Opposition motion today.
	I cannot help but feel that the lack of progress demonstrates something more profound than just sympathy for publicans—tensions within the Government and a lack of political will to translate promises into legislative action. The result of that will be disillusionment among the public and the tenants who need reforms, and above all, disillusionment with Parliament as an institution, which has demonstrated that it cannot make its will prevail over the Government.

Damian Hinds: The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) outlined effectively and persuasively the importance of pubs as valuable assets to this country. They are at the heart of our communities and a big part of being British. In East Hampshire we have great community hubs, from the Fox and Pelican at Grayshott to the White Hart at Holybourne. There are also a number of the beautiful country pubs that form part of our national image and attract people to visit this country, such as the Queens and the Selborne Arms, the Greyfriar at Jane Austen’s Chawton, the Harrow, the Trooper and the Pub With No Name. That great range of brilliant pubs is a mixture of managed houses, tenancies, leases and independent free houses.
	Like many other areas, we have also suffered too many pub closures. Just in the past couple of years, in one town in my constituency, Alton, and its surroundings, we have lost the Gentleman Jim, the Railway Hotel, the Barley Mow, the Wey Bridge, the two pubs in Ropley—the Chequers and the Anchor—and, just recently, the only pub in the growing community of Four Marks, the Windmill. Like the pub that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) mentioned, the Windmill is going to become a Co-operative retail store. Of course, a lot of other publicans are struggling to break even and make a decent living.
	I welcome the Government’s support for the licensed trade, such as the scrapping of the beer duty escalator, the 1p of tax taken off a pint, the extension of small business rate relief and the community right to bid. It is worth remembering that the pub trade’s problems predate the beer duty escalator and exist in both tied houses and
	free houses. Top of the list is the declining propensity of men to visit a pub after work multiple times a week to drink reasonably large quantities of draft beer, which is a high gross margin product. The second, related, problem is the wide price gap between the on-trade and off-trade in alcohol sales, which has coincided with the arrival of affordable, decent quality new world wine. There are a whole range of other factors, many of which we would welcome in themselves but have had adverse consequences for the pub trade. I refer to things such as the smoking ban, radically different attitudes to drink-driving and changes in people’s living rooms, such as having big-screen TVs at home, not just at the pub. There is also intense price competition in food and leisure in general.
	When I used to work for an integrated brewer—I worked for Greene King for a couple of years—the cost pressures that licensees used to talk about included the massive price of Sky, which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned, the national minimum wage and the cost of products through the tie.
	We could argue that pub owners take too much money from publicans, but to mention only the tie is to chase the wrong target. People have two key objections to it: the impact on product range, and the way the product is priced. On the first point, we must remember that the tie is not the same for every pub. For some, particularly food-led pubs, it excludes wine and spirits, for example, which can be bought from outside. For others, even a tied house, there may be provision for a guest beer or for what is sometimes called a “local hero”, which means that a pub owner in an area where there is one dominant beer brand might be allowed to have that brand, even though it is a director competitor.
	A lot of the focus has been on whether licensees have the right to buy in a guest ale of their choosing. The hon. Member for Chesterfield mentioned the 160,000 members of CAMRA, and a lot of other people are also real ale lovers. I am proud to count myself among their ranks. I am proud of real ale—it is a uniquely British product that is not found anywhere else in the world, and I am proud to bits that it is growing. It is a craft product, and we should support it. I would love the Triple fff brewery in Four Marks, in my constituency, to have more outlets for its beer, which people would enjoy drinking. A guest ale option is positive for the increase of the brewery industry. However, we must be clear that it is a red herring for the survival of most pubs. Real ale is a small category in most pubs, and four out of 10 do not stock it at all. The drinks that matter in most pubs are standard lager, bag-in-box Coke and the others that generate the bulk of revenue.
	The second set of objections to the tie are about pricing, which goes to the heart of pubs’ profitability. Sometimes when we discuss the matter—it happened in the last debate in the House—we speak as though, if we could remove the tie and the inflated beer prices from the equation, everything else would stay the same. Of course, that is not what would happen at all. The target margin for pubs is set by starting with a target return. There is an asset on the books with a certain value, and it is believed that the shareholders and the market require a certain return to be demonstrated on it. That return is split between rent and margin, the latter sometimes
	being known in the trade as “wet rent” for that reason. If the return was all on rents, the rent would clearly be higher and pubs would be more operationally geared, with a higher fixed cost. Arguably, more businesses might fail.

Greg Mulholland: With respect, although my hon. Friend speaks from a position of knowledge, I think he is missing the point. The whole point of the benchmark level of the market rent-only option—the Select Committee’s solution—is to stop the double overcharging that currently happens. The large pub companies have skewed the traditional tie so that there is no longer a lower rent if there are higher beer prices. The benchmarking survey by the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers shows that tied rents are higher, on average, than free-of-tie rents, which is an abuse of the tied model.

Damian Hinds: It is difficult to go into the maths in great detail in a forum such as this, but with respect, I do not see how we can make that comparison, because we are talking about different pubs in different places.

Toby Perkins: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is difficult to make such comparisons. That is precisely why we are making the case that the only way to get genuine fairness is to ensure that people know what is a fair market rent. We can then say, “You can take that or you can take an alternative. The choice is yours.” That is the only way we will get a genuinely fair deal.

Damian Hinds: I have a lot of sympathy with that view and it is legitimate. We must not forget, however, that the owner of the pub also has an interest in that business thriving, and it must be an arrangement both sides are happy with. In one sense, the tie is just a way of sharing risk. It is a way of having rent that goes up when business is good, and down when business goes down. If we want to complain about how much money pub owners take from licensees, that is perfectly reasonable, but it is misleading to speak only about the tie and to say that if that went, all those problems would disappear. I do not believe they would.
	I believe the single most important thing for regulation is to ensure the availability of proper financial and legal advice for new licensees. That must include someone giving advice who is able to understand and challenge what the pub company puts forward. It is called FMT—fair maintainable trade—and involves an estimate of what the pub can make, on which the rent and target return is based. If the licensee enters that arrangement with their eyes fully open, it is a commercial decision. Pub companies tell us that things are getting better and that pre-entry training, consultation and so on has improved, but it is difficult to tell that from the outside—I know the Select Committee has had more opportunity to look at that in detail.
	Overall, we want more of a partnership approach between the owner of the pub and the licensee, and in the industry at its best that is of course what happens. For a long time, pulling pints has not been enough to survive and thrive in the licence trade. Such businesses are increasingly food driven, and they are trying to attract a wider range of customers while having to compete against managed houses that have different cost structures. There can be big advantages to being part of a wider group,
	such as consultancy and guidance on the development of the food business and menus. For some, there are other streams of business such as accommodation and retail opportunities, or—critically—improving purchasing programmes to improve margins.
	It may be that as the industry evolves, the old tied model becomes less appropriate as more business goes to food and other products, and a franchising-type model may become more appropriate. It is arguably easier to do that and provide a full range of services if there are managed houses, as well as tenancies or leases. It is not for the Government to force such things through, but competition authorities can ensure there is sufficient space in the marketplace for operators who would provide a different model to licensees. The other crucial thing the Government can do to ensure that pub companies are fully mentally invested in long-term pub operations, rather than having an asset register of real estate, is make it harder to convert to residential property. If someone knows that the way they will make money out of a certain asset is by trading it well as a pub or a place where people come together to eat and drink, their minds will be focused on doing that more and more.
	Where communities want to take over a pub, but that does not work out with the pub company and so on, I would like the Government to review continually the way the community right to bid works. We have a number of such instances in my constituency, and there is a great team working on the Anchor in Ropley. People are giving up a lot of time and putting in their expertise. That seems quite hard on occasion, and I hope the Government will keep that under review to ensure the process is as simple as possible.
	In conclusion, we should beware of solutions, such as removing the tie, that appear to solve a lot of problems. Let us think back to the beer orders, and those who thought it was a great idea at the time in terms of breaking the vertical integration hold of brewers on individual pubs. I wonder what some of those people think about that now.

Barry Sheerman: It comes almost as a surprise to me to speak in this debate. First, I am a member of the Methodist Church and we have a long tradition of not being very keen on drinking, although we have modernised a bit since those days. As I said in an intervention, I also own a pub as chairman of the John Clare Trust, because we bought the Exeter Arms in Helpston. It is temporarily closed while we finance what we call an omni-hub in the village, which will meet the needs of the local community and the overall educational purposes of the trust. A journalist said to me the other week, “You must be the only MP who owns both a church and a pub.” Funnily enough, the church in Norwood Green in Halifax, where we have an environmental body, has a strict codicil that states we cannot serve alcohol. It is an interesting world we live in.
	May I remind the House of a bit of history? I support the motion today. I do not say that in a partisan way because there is so much agreement about the need for action. I shall support it not only because the Whips will tell me to, but because it is about time we had some action. I think there is a majority in this House for action on the situation of the many people in tied houses. When we took over the Exeter Arms, having
	negotiated a reasonable price with Enterprise Inns, there had been a succession of tenants who just could not make it work while having to pay premium prices for beer and everything else. They had to pay if they introduced new varieties of food and for all the gaming machines—I did not realise the tie could take a lot of that as well. Many people had found it very difficult to make a go of that pub, and they need a new and fair deal.

Tony Cunningham: I do not want to miss the point because the whole essence of this debate is about fairness. We should always remember that word—fairness—because it has been absent for a very long time in that relationship.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I was about to make point. Let us look at the history. I have been in the House quite a long time and I remember what seemed to be a dramatic change when Lord Young of Graffham, then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, cut up the industry, and the link between brewers that cared about their pubs and the pub estate was broken. That was done perhaps with the best intentions, but the unintended consequence was that people who had a tradition of brewing and who loved beer and their pub outlets were cut out of that relationship. The Conservative Government at that time—I am not being too rancorous about this—created unintended consequences that severely damaged brewing and the pubs of this country.

Greg Mulholland: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that was an unintended consequence of the change, but organisations—particularly CAMRA at the time—said that there had to be a limit for all companies, including stand-alone pub companies, but that was not included because of industry lobbying. That led to the disaster that created the stand-alone pubcos and it is why the Government must now intervene to put that right.

Barry Sheerman: I agree, but we cannot get away from the fact that, as I see it, the whole brewing industry and the pub estates have been taken over by money men and women who are interested mainly in the return they can get on the estate and do not have a real love of the sector, brewing, beer and the leisure industry generally. I get the impression that the people who own most of the pubs in our country are not those who love the sector, and they are out to screw as much money and profit from it as they can. Some of them, because they made unwise takeover investments at a particular time, have become very ruthless indeed, although I shall not dwell on that.
	The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a very good speech, but one thing I feel strongly about as a long-term campaigner against smoking is the myth that banning smoking in pubs damaged trade. I do not think it did. I think it opened pubs to a broader audience of people who wanted to go out but not to finish the evening stinking of tobacco. That is the only thing I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about.
	Hon. Members are sometimes cosy about the pub trade and defend it. I love the pubs in my constituency—I do not go to all of them, but there are some wonderful ones. We have some fine history, too, like the Luddite trail in Huddersfield. At the time of the Luddites,
	people could not belong to a political society or trade union. The only place they could meet—it was a secret society—was in pubs. People still go to many of the pubs that the Luddites conspired in, which is a lovely bit of history. The Exeter Arms in Helpston is the pub where John Clare played the fiddle—he was taught by Gypsies—and sang with his father, who was also a farm labourer. That is the wonderful history of Helpston. John Clare also worked as the pot man at the Blue Bell Inn to make ends meet.
	There is history, but the industry, like any other, must be up to date. Many people stopped going to pubs because they did not keep up to date. The hon. Member for East Hampshire mentioned men going home from work and drinking a lot of beer every night. That has gone. The pub trade should keep up by providing good food and a good selection of drinks—I drink wine, but not much beer. Pubs should have well trained people serving. The skills training in the pub trade is very poor. I care very much about high-quality skills in every sector, but there is too little high-quality training of pub staff. I have found that there is very little training in pub management. Many who have a go at running a pub have never been trained to manage anything, which is a recipe for disaster. We need an industry with training at its core and with 21st century skills.
	We also need a diverse community of pubs. One of the first social enterprises I started as a young councillor was a folk club for young people in a Welsh village. Pubs playing the relevant music for the area are an amazing draw. People go to pubs to have fun and a good time. If they cannot have fun and a good time in a pub, what is its purpose? A good time means different things for different parts of the community. The pubs mentioned by the hon. Member for East Hampshire reminded me of Roger Davies, a well known singer-songwriter from Brighouse in West Yorkshire, who strung together the names of all the pubs in his area in a glorious song.
	Pubs have to upgrade. Back in the day, someone went into a pub in Rochdale after reading a sign saying, “Pie, pint and a friendly word.” He gets a pint, which is not very good, and his pie. He says to the landlord, “Where’s the friendly word?” The landlord leans in and says, “Don’t eat the pie.” I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) was not in the Chamber to hear that, because that is too often the image of the pub. I love CAMRA and my local CAMRA organisation, but it sometimes puts people off. There is sometimes a stand-off in CAMRA pubs. There are only men, many wearing beards and dressed in a particular way. They sometimes make going to the pub a little bit too much of a minority leisure activity, which can be damaging.
	The future of pubs is at the heart of the community, doing all sorts of things they have never done before. They could have crowdfunding centres, educational facilities for elderly and young people, and a range of activities, so that they are a hub in a broader sense than anyone has managed to achieve so far. I chair the Westminster forum on crowdfunding. Crowdfunding through CrowdPatch can turn a community around. Where better for such activity than the pub?
	I commend the Opposition motion only because I want action. However, I want the trade and the pub industry to come up to date and do exciting and innovative things.

Greg Mulholland: I cannot say that it is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. I pay tribute to him, to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff), and to his Committee for their excellent work. It is a stunning example of a Select Committee. Like the hon. Member for West Bromwich West, I would rather we were not having another debate on pub companies. If we have to have one, I would rather that we were voting on Government proposals that do what the Committee has said the Government should do since 2011.
	We will have to have at least one more debate on pub companies—I have shared that with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins). When we have the response, we will need to bring it before the House and show that the majority of hon. Members support not only action but the only sensible and obvious action, namely the Committee’s suggestion of a market rent only option.
	It is important to remember the history of pub companies. Let us be clear that we are debating pubcos because of the concerted lobbying of a number of organisations. Last year, I was pleased to bring those organisations together under the banner of the Fair Deal for Your Local Campaign. Those 10 organisations—the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the GMB, the Guild of Master Victuallers, Fair Pint, the Pubs Advisory Service, Justice for Licensees, Licensees Supporting Licensees, CAMRA and Licensees Unite—have a membership of more than 2 million people. The campaign is now supported by no fewer than 206 MPs on both sides of the House. It is supported by the whole Opposition, so there is a clear majority for action.
	I pay tribute to one MP who was a supporter of the Fair Deal for Your Local Campaign—the wonderful Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East, Paul Goggins, who is sadly no longer with us. I thank Paul for his support, which was yet another example of his commitment to social justice and a reform that we need if we are to have a fairer society.
	The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills decided in 2011 not to do what we believed it would do. The reality is that we were outdone by some rather dodgy, behind-the-scenes lobbying. That is precisely why we set up the Fair Deal for Your Local Campaign—to ensure that, with the might of the 10 organisations behind us, we could tackle that lobbying head-on, which is precisely what we have done. It was the freedom of information request submitted by the all-party parliamentary save the pub group that outed the lobbying and led to the first debate and the unanimous vote for action.
	To be fair to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Government, the motion in January 2012 said that we must have a consultation in autumn 2012.
	It appeared that we would not have one, but it happened. The consultation showed what we knew it would show: that the problems are as bad as ever and that self-regulation has failed. The response was the debate a year ago and the announcement of the consultation.
	As someone who has campaigned on pub companies for something like six or seven years, I of course share hon. Members’ frustration. I am more frustrated than anyone and wish that the Government had responded by now, but they have not. The only reason that I shall support the amendment is that, as the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has said, there has been last chance after last chance for the industry, so the Government should have a last chance to act. This is that last chance. I assure the Chair of the Committee and the House that if the Government do not announce swiftly that they will back the Committee’s solution, and in a time frame that allows for legislation, they can be assured that I will lead the criticism most loudly, because it is so long overdue. That is where we are and I hope we will get a decision as soon as possible. What we are seeing from the rather desperate lobbying by industry sources are the death throes of an unjustifiable and unregulated business model, and the last sorry chapter in one of the worst and most shameful episodes of corporate abuse and financial mismanagement that the UK corporate sector has ever seen.
	The Secretary of State was right to say that the issue is not the existence of a tied model, and just to correct my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), it is not about the abolition of the tie. The Fair Deal for Your Local Campaign is very clear that it is about stopping abuse of the tie. That abuse is endemic because of reckless financial mismanagement, the acquisitions spree and the overvaluation scam that led to huge debts that are the reason why these companies are taking so much of the profit—often 75% and even 100% of pub profits—and stopping tenants and lessees making a living.
	This is not about emotion or roses around the door, but cold, hard economics. While average tied rents are higher than free-of-tie rents—it should be the other way around, because the only justification for the tie is that if people agree to pay more for their beer they should pay a lower rent—beer prices go up and up and up, and the increases are above inflation every year.
	I am delighted to see the Secretary of State back in his place. Does he know that Punch Taverns, which was the largest pub company, made an astonishing £2.271 billion in 10 years from selling on beer, simply by acting as a middle man, driving the price at the brewery down and selling on to tenants? I say to all my Conservative coalition partners—many are hugely supportive of this campaign, standing alongside the Federation of Small Business and the Forum of Private Business, and understand that this is about freeing up small businesses and giving them a chance—that this is about bringing in market forces. I say to those who are confused that this is not a market place that it working; it is an abuse of capitalism and a twisting of the market.

Toby Perkins: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, though he has moved on slightly from the point I wanted to intervene on. On whether what we are now seeing are the death throes of a shameful part of the history of our corporate world, does he share my astonishment that the big pub companies are making the case that if
	their customers have the choice not to use them, they will not use them, and that that will cause them to collapse? Can he think of any other industry that would think it was credible to say, “The only reason our customers use us is because they have to, and if they don’t have to, we will collapse”?

Greg Mulholland: As the hon. Gentleman and, I think, many right hon. and hon. Members know, there has been an extraordinary campaign of misinformation on behalf of the big pub companies by their lobbyists the British Beer and Pub Association. I am sorry to say that it includes false statements that have been given even to the Select Committee: false statements about the reality of pub closure figures, and lots of unsubstantiated nonsense about how giving the right to a fair rent—that is all we are talking about; the right to choose whether to have a rent-only agreement—will somehow close breweries, create all sorts of disasters and close pubs. That must be stamped on. I urge all Members to read “Setting the Record Straight” by the Fair Deal for Your Local Campaign, which puts those myths to bed.

Andrew Stunell: I give my hon. Friend every encouragement to carry on the excellent work he has been doing over the years in Parliament. Does he agree that Punch Taverns, in particular, has very pernicious business practices? Just this weekend, I met the tenant of the Bulls Head in High Lane, who is a victim of its partner franchise tenancy. He has been driven out of business in less than nine months and tells me that he is one of three tenants of Punch Tavern inns who have been driven out of business in the past nine months through this pernicious sucking of capital and revenue out of the business.

Greg Mulholland: There are many, many examples from around the country that show just that. I have a word of caution for Business, Innovation and Skills Ministers, as it appears that some companies are using franchising to seek to circumvent the code, and that must be dealt with.
	We have witnessed an extraordinary campaign of misinformation, but the report from the all-party save the pub group, to which the Secretary of State referred, showed the reality of pub closures. The CGA Strategy figures, often misquoted and misused in a disgraceful way, show clearly that between December 2004 and March 2013 the number of non-managed pubs—that is, tenanted and leased and mostly tied pubs—fell by 5,117, compared with a fall of only 2,131 free trade pubs in the same period. It is extraordinary for the BBPA to have gone around peddling the myth to the Select Committee—it fell for it previously, but it now realises that it was duped—when its own figures over 10 years showed that the number of non-managed, leased and tenanted pubs decreased by more than 8,000, while the free trade sector expanded by 1,600. No wonder it was keeping those figures rather quiet and relying on a distortion of others.
	On pub disposals, Enterprise Inns and Punch Taverns, the two largest pub companies, disposed of more than 5,000 pubs—a third of their pubs—in just four years, between 2008 and 2012. I say to the Secretary of State that pub closures, both temporary and permanent, are being caused in huge number because of the inequity of the lease-tied pubco model. The argument, based on flawed conclusions, that some reports and analysts make
	is that there is no competition issue or consumer detriment. How can it be argued that there is no consumer detriment when in many cases consumers are having their pubs unnecessarily closed because of the abuse of the tie and the reckless mismanagement by such companies?
	The solution is clear and it is backed by the Select Committee, the Fair Deal For Your Local campaign and 206 MPs. I say to my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches that it is a simple market-based solution that would bring back not just fairness but competition into what has become an unequal and uncompetitive relationship. Do not take my word for it: take the word of the former community pubs Minister, the first appointed by the Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who said:
	“A market rent only option offers the only mechanism that can transform the fortunes of thousands of landlords across the country. It is a common sense market-based solution.”
	The Prime Minister himself knows these problems all too well through the experience of The Chequers Inn in Witney, where the Enterprise Inns lessee had to move after a long dispute and lack of support. One of the most extraordinary things in that dispute was not the overcharging, which is endemic in the Enterprise Inns business model, or that at the same time as pubs were shutting the boss Ted Tuppen and the new boss Simon Townsend paid themselves vast salaries and hundreds and thousands of pounds in bonuses, but that The Chequers Inn licensee, Simon Moore, could not deal directly with the brewery whose yard was at the back of his pub. I cannot believe that Conservatives can stand that business arrangement any more than the Liberal Democrats or Labour Members, and I welcome the support of so many MPs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and the chair of the all-party save the pub group, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), who has campaigned long and hard on this issue.
	Let us look at the research and the reality, not the nonsense being peddled. The extraordinary piece of work by London Economics is frankly so flawed that it is a disgrace it was ever commissioned. I have put in a freedom of information request to find out the truth. That research concluded that if we stopped the large pub companies taking too much from pub profits, they would, according to the pub companies, be less viable. It concluded that that would lead to pub closures, when clearly the opposite is the case. At the end of the research we see the worrying phrase:
	“London Economics would like to thank the pub companies who supplied us with confidential data”—
	more behind-closed-doors thinking. We want to see those data and the brief given to it, because its conclusions are utterly absurd.
	In reality, as seen in research by the Federation of Small Businesses, if we had a market rent only option, not only would 79% of lessees take it, but people would take on more staff and invest in their pubs, and confidence would increase—98% of tenants said they would have more confidence in the future of their business. Moreover, the projections show that nearly £80 billion would be pumped into the UK economy, rather than go abroad to pay off foreign creditors, the people currently—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that I asked Members to speak for 10 minutes so that we would not need a time limit and everybody could get in. He has now been speaking for 17 minutes, and other Members might not get in as a consequence. I would be grateful if he could reflect on that and perhaps draw his remarks to a conclusion.

Greg Mulholland: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I allowed my enthusiasm to get the better of me.
	To conclude, these are the death throes of this model, but the Government must act to save hundreds of pubs. Punch Taverns is teetering on the brink. It is in discussion with bondholders that might anyway lead to its demise. Luckily its tenants and lessees have their rights, but they also need the right to a fair share of their pub profits. It is time we had a decision. I welcome the chance to give the Government the necessary nudge—that is what this is about—but let us come back and discuss this again when we get their response. They must now listen and their response must be the right one.

Susan Elan Jones: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), whom I know has a long track record of campaigning on this issue.
	I am sorry that the playwright Samuel Beckett is no longer with us, because there is more than a shade of an existential play to this one: in act one, we all eventually come to some sort of conclusion, but in act two, it all replays, only in this case there are more than two acts and nothing changes, and on and on we seem to have gone.

Chloe Smith: The hon. Lady should come to the Sewell Barn theatre in Norwich. It is currently playing much better works than those.

Susan Elan Jones: I fear I might also have to go to a Welsh pub to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) teach us folk singing, but I would be delighted to come to the hon. Lady’s constituency as well.
	We were last here debating this matter on 9 January last year, when many of us genuinely felt reassured by the Government’s promises to introduce a statutory code and independent adjudicator, which we all concluded were needed, and I am extremely heartened that today, having doggedly pursued this issue, my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has offered the possibility of a proper cross-party agreement in order to get the Bill on the statute book. The Secretary of State said earlier that it all depended on the legislative timetable, but we know the paucity of business on that timetable. It would be easy for the Bill to pass, and I hope it does.
	It was clear that an industry regulator was needed when we debated this last year and that the Government had to take action, and so they still do. We are not waiting for Godot; we are waiting for Government. One year on, and a good deal longer since the House first spoke out, many of us are disappointed that no progress or change has been made. Of course, any regulator must be created carefully, but the Government’s sluggish action is nothing short of a tragedy in many communities.
	As Members will know, the Government’s response to their own consultation on pub company reform is now four months overdue.
	Society changes fast, and it is more than 20 years since the former Prime Minister John Major evoked those oh so quintessentially British images that not even UKIP councillors could complain about: of cricket, warm beer, and spinsters cycling—preferably having kept to soft drinks before doing so. The pub has been in decline for many different reasons, not least the revolting practice of what I believe is called pre-loading, which was mentioned earlier, but it is not about which Government did what. Figures from organisations such as the Campaign for Real Ale demonstrate the scale and pace of the decline, in a situation where we could effect positive change. With 26 pubs closing every week, a few hundred must have closed in the four months in which we have been waiting for the consultation on pub company reform. That is deeply concerning.
	I am concerned about why the Government have failed to act. As Members will know, if a Bill is to be introduced before the general election, the Government must put it in this Queen’s Speech. With every month of stalling, it becomes less and less likely that a Bill will be passed this Parliament. We are losing hundreds of pubs a year, which adds up to hundreds of businesses and job losses. With hard-working families already struggling to makes ends meet, that will only add to the melting pot being created within our local communities. By the Government’s own admission this time last year, our local pubs are struggling. We know that. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was correct when he said that these small businesses were under a great deal of pressure.
	In my own constituency, I am delighted to have seen creditable examples of communities coming together to fight for change, but often that has happened in opposition to the tied system, not because of it. I have been hugely impressed by a group from the village of Minera. Faced with a pub that had closed, local people came together, raised the money and reopened a much-loved pub that is now a welcoming hub within that beautiful mountainous community. Tyn y Capel pub is an excellent example of a truly community-owned and run pub. Local people have bought shares and are managing the enterprise, but financially, for all their success in the community, it is touch and go. It is not possible to run the pub full time; still less is it possible to have full-time paid staff—much of the time, it is staffed by volunteers, with only a temporary residue of paid staff.
	We need more Tyn y Capels, but we need an environment in which pubs can survive. Thousands of pubs have closed in the last four years, and hundreds more are being sold every year, and with each closure, a family, an individual or a community lose their business, livelihood or a vital connection to their community.

Bob Stewart: Pubcos seem to be cutting off their nose to spite their face. I just do not understand. If they charge too much for rent and beer, their tenants will go out of business and it will not work. The only way for pubcos to survive is if they reduce their prices so that more pubs survive. It makes sense. Even without legislation, that is good economics and good business. Why are they not doing that?

Susan Elan Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. For far too long, what we have seen from pubcos is a ridiculous example of monopolistic practices, which this House and the Government need to deal with.
	Even those pubs that are staying open face an appalling situation, with tied landlords often paid risibly low salaries. That is why it is vital that the Government act and stop delaying on a promise that they made this time last year—and, I think, probably this time the year before. This is not just about beer drinkers facing higher prices and poorer choice, or even about people losing their local; it is about fairness for current pub owners and future jobs in our communities. The Government made us a promise. Indeed, some of us can remember that before the Secretary of State became a Minister, he was often referred to—sometimes affectionately, sometimes not—as Saint Vince. Today Saint Vince has a chance to redeem himself, for it is high time that he and the Government delivered on the promise they made and took some much needed action.

Laurence Robertson: Let me declare a non-declarable interest, as it were. My sister, along with her husband, runs the local pub, The Village Inn, in Twyning, the village I live in, so although I do not have absolutely first-hand experience of the pub trade, I have what must pass as a close interest.
	I echo what has been said about the value of pubs to communities. They are not only places where people drink; they are places where they eat and meet. Many golf societies, darts clubs and pool tournaments are hosted by pubs, and they are of great value to local communities in rural areas especially. Pubs also raise a lot of money for charities. Just this Saturday gone, I had the honour of presenting three cheques totalling almost £4,000 to local charities, and that picture is replicated across the country.
	However, we have concerns. We are seeing many pubs closing, as has been said, and many landlords getting by on very little money. Their profits have been squeezed by the business model under which many of them are operating. There are no easy answers to the problem. As I said in an intervention, I held an Adjournment debate on this issue in the last Parliament, during which there were other such debates. The then Government were accused of not responding to a report that came out in that Parliament. I do not seek to make a party political point about that; I merely suggest that it is fairly unusual for the House to be almost in total agreement when discussing a problem, as it is today, yet for us all to be struggling to come up with a solution that will actually work.
	As has been mentioned, the idea was tried with the beer orders in 1989, when breweries were barred from holding more than a certain number of pubs. That gave birth to the pubcos that we now see, which then bought pubs and other properties at high prices. As has been rightly said, they are now trying to recoup that money, in some cases quite desperately.

Andrew Griffiths: I completely concur with my hon. Friend’s point. He mentions the history of this. Would he be surprised to learn that the number of pubs owned by pubcos doubled under the last Government?

Laurence Robertson: I am not at all surprised to hear that. I do not know the exact figure, but I do know that that is what has given rise to problem, to the extent that it is one.
	I recognise that there is a problem, and I want us to move on as quickly as we can, to help hard-working people who are keeping pubs going at the centre of communities. There are problems—I want to stress that point—but I want us to come up with a lasting solution that will not make matters worse. There are some benefits to the existing situation—I will come to the weaknesses in a minute. For example, a pubco can allow people who do not have a great deal of capital to enter the trade. They might be unable to afford to spend £300,000, £400,000 or £500,000 on buying a pub outright or to borrow that money. They also get their accommodation basically covered—certainly in most cases—while they run the pub, which gives them some security.
	I do not recommend the tie at all, but I am concerned about what would happen to the rent if there were no tie. I am not speaking against reassessing the rent against a market level, but if we do that, what do we compare it with? If we are looking beyond pubs, we might look to McDonald’s, for example, or other franchise organisations. Is that a direct comparison? I am not quite sure how the proposal would work in detail—and of course, the devil is always in the detail. What about the repairing side of the lease? Will people with a fixed market rent be required to do more repairing of the fabric of the building than they are now? I am not throwing those questions out as stumbling blocks or trying to cause a problem, but they need answering.

Toby Perkins: I am happy to help the hon. Gentleman on that. The valuation would be done with transparency against the performance of other pubs. We need much greater transparency in the industry. Under the specific proposals that we have made today, the publican would be able to decide, knowing what a fair market rent was, whether they wanted to throw their lot in with the pub company, on the offer being made, or to opt out and buy their beer from wherever they chose. I hope that has answered his questions.

Laurence Robertson: Not exactly, no, because how do we determine what the market rent level is? Is it the level for those with a tie or those without a tie? What about a repairing lease or a non-repairing lease? These are all details that need filling out, but I am not aware that they have been properly addressed. I want to deal with them and to make progress, but I am not sure we are there yet.

Greg Mulholland: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that I can help him. BIS Ministers have a copy of the definition of a market rent only option, which sets out how it would work and when it would be triggered. In essence, it is about simply paying a rent, which would be independently assessed according to statutory guidelines, and then being able to buy everything directly from the market. He seems to be making a mistaken comparison. The pubco tied leases are generally “fully repairing and insuring”. One of the scandals was when, as part of a tied lease, all the responsibility for that was shifted. A market rent only option is exactly what I have set out, and I will send that definition to him.

Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; perhaps I could now move on to how rents are assessed. As has been said, quite often they are assessed not on
	the turnover of a pub, but on the potential turnover, which takes in things such as food and non-tied products. There is therefore an unfairness in the way that rents are assessed now. If we can move to a better system, I will certainly support that.
	As has been said, there is also the inflated cost of tied products. For example, certain pubcos will charge £130.70 for a keg of Carling when it can quite easily be bought—we have looked at these figures—for £95. That is a huge difference, which squeezes the profits of the landlord and makes the beer more expensive for consumers. To give another example, Stowford is sold for £112.70 when it can be sourced for £79.99. Those are just two examples; I could go on and on if I had the time. I think hon. Members realise that this is a problem.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State both mentioned this, but this debate is not just about the rent and the tie. We make a huge mistake if we believe that. We can look at those aspects at the beginning of a contract taken out with a pubco, but the relationship goes on from there, and sometimes it is the behaviour of the pubcos that causes the problems. For example, pubcos have the power to install fixtures and fittings and charge an exorbitant amount to the landlord, but he will not get anything back for them. Basically, the fixtures and fittings rule, which has been in existence for a long time, is a con, I am afraid. I thought carefully about whether I should use that word, but I think that rule is a con. It is an additional rent that people have to pay, which again squeezes the profits.
	When people go into a pub owned by a pubco, they often have to go on expensive courses run by that pubco, for which it can charge exorbitant amounts. The cost of carrying out electricity checks, for example, has doubled in one year at the local pub I mentioned. It is the same pub, so why has the cost doubled? These are the sort of extraordinary charges that pubcos sometimes make in the course of running their ordinary business.
	Extraordinary decisions are sometimes taken. The local pub I mentioned needed about £100,000 of work carried out, but the electrics and the roof were not completed when that work was done. There seemed to be an obsession with putting up new wallpaper, which was not necessary and not at all important. The work needed to be done over a six-week period, yet the period covering the jubilee week of last year was suggested. That is unbelievable—the busiest week of the busiest year in memory was chosen, and when the landlord refused to have the work done then and asked why it could not be done in January, there was a startled reaction.
	I am providing examples to show that it is not just about the rent or the tie; it is about the behaviour of the pubcos as they go through the period of the agreement. I do not know how best to assess and tackle the problem, which is as important as other issues discussed today.
	I have had my 10 minutes. I would have liked to talk about more issues, but in summary, I believe it is important to be careful to get this matter right. I think we need to take a little longer—I suggest not years, but months. Sometimes Government interventions can make things worse; sometimes Governments can be the problem rather than the solution. As I said at the outset, I believe that there is a problem and that it needs fixing.

Alison Seabeck: It is interesting for me to follow the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who broadened the debate, yet also provided some technical detail. I am sure that both Front-Bench teams will be interested to consider what he said. There has been broad agreement on this issue. What I think frustrates publicans and people who use pubs the most is the fact that, despite that broad agreement, nothing seems to be happening.
	The Secretary of State, who is not in his place, listed all manner of surveys, while my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) talked about the detailed work done by the BIS Select Committee over a number of years. Apart from the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), very few Members have that level of detailed knowledge of the history and nature of the problem. The House is privileged to have both those Members contributing to the debate.
	Pubs are struggling. As we have heard, many have diversified and are successfully running restaurants, for example. I called into a pub somewhere off the A303 and found that an opera evening was going on, apparently with great success. This and other specialist events are all designed to bring the punters into the pub, and provide a good all-round pub experience. Of course, when pubs are well run—and most are—they provide an opportunity for people to drink responsibly. Some Members touched on concerns about alcohol abuse, with some people just boozing at home. We should encourage people to go and drink sensibly in a pub with a responsible landlord, and we want a thriving network of pubs around the country.
	Members have voiced concerns about the level of advice and training of the people who work in and run pubs. The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a good point about that, and it is worth looking at as part of the wider process of change.
	I find it extraordinary that the Government and the industry have failed to act on the popular demand for change. The case made by the Fair Deal for Your Local Campaign, the Campaign for Real Ale and its members, the Federation of Small Businesses, the GMB and others is an extremely sound one. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) cited the outcome of consultations, returning resounding support for change, with 96% in favour of the main question and 92% in favour of independent rent reviews. From my experience, Governments seldom issue consultations without having a ballpark idea of the answers they are likely to get. I therefore find it almost inexplicable that, despite receiving full and rounded responses on the subject, the Government are still prevaricating. It is extremely disappointing.
	We have some fantastic pubs in Plymouth and the south-west, but in other parts of the country, pubs are struggling and closing. We had some recent closures in Plymouth. My local pub, The Ferry House Inn, is diversifying. It serves fabulous food, and it is surviving, which is great. Other publicans across the city, however, are earning little more than the minimum wage. They sometimes work 364 or 365 days a year, and I think it takes a special type of person to take on the challenge of running a pub. The hon. Member for Leeds North West made it very clear that the tie is a distorting influence, in that tenants can no longer get lower rent in return for higher beer prices.

Andrew Griffiths: The hon. Lady says that the tie is distorting. I point her to the Office of Fair Trading investigation, which clearly said that the tie does not distort and that it is not anti-competitive in any way.

Alison Seabeck: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, and it would be interesting to hear what the Secretary of State says in response to that finding, which, to be honest, many Members find rather odd.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield highlighted other areas of business where there is a relationship similar to the one that exists between the pubs and the companies, but where things are much more open and fairer. Clearly, we need to get pubs put on to that type of footing. This motion encourages a move away from the current position. All hon. Members who enjoy visiting their local pub and drinking a good ale or beer should think carefully and support the motion.
	With pubs struggling for a range of different reasons, we need to do something about it. We need to introduce independent rent reviews to stop this double rent charging, to put in place the mandatory free-of-tie option and to set up an independent adjudicator, which would make a massive difference. The Government keep telling us that they are not kicking this issue into the long grass—I have lost count of the number of times that has been said—and that everything is being handled in a timely manner. Timely for whom? The Government should tell that to the 26 pubs that are about to close. They are not acting in a timely fashion. How many pubs will have to go to the wall before we finally get legislation? Let us face it: at the moment, the legislative programme is virtually non-existent, and there is no excuse for the Government not to bring legislation forward. I urge the Secretary of State to get his finger out and do something about it.

Caroline Nokes: I shall keep my comments as brief as possible because the problems with pub companies have been well rehearsed this afternoon. I would like to thank the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) for mentioning the Abbots Mitre in Chilbolton; I can reassure him that the pub is still open and doing business. In that instance, however, there have been significant problems with the tie. That caused difficulties for the local community, which then sought to establish a community buy-out to make sure that their much-loved local is still open.
	There are numerous examples in Romsey and Southampton North of previously successful and popular pubs shutting their doors. Some of the closures have been temporary. I am pleased that the Hunters inn in Romsey, for example, has reopened and is doing well. I echo the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) in saying that it takes a very special type of person to make a success of running a pub. The Hunters inn is a good example because the landlord there is also the landlord of two other pubs in the immediate Romsey area. He has certainly worked hard with pub companies to make sure that he can make a go of it. I am sure that it is partly attributable to his strong negotiation skills when it comes to arranging and agreeing leases.
	However, this afternoon I want to focus on a slightly less happy example: the Stoneham Arms in Bassett, which closed in the middle of last year. I fear that what I
	am about to say is almost inevitable: the pub was owned by Enterprise Inns and is due to be converted to a Co-op store, although there is already one just a few doors away. I have no doubt that there is a sound business model to add to the existing retail offer in Bassett Green road, because otherwise the Co-op would not be seeking to do that, but the Stoneham Arms as a pub provided a meeting place for the community, and there are precious few such facilities left in Bassett. We often talk about the need for more community cohesion, but pubs can and do provide ideal meeting places.
	I know that pub companies often cite a lack of interest on the part of potential future tenants as one of the reasons why they are obliged to consider alternative uses. Enterprise Inns informed me that the Stoneham Arms had been marketed on extremely competitive terms in an attempt to find a new publican, and that, in its words,
	“not one serious enquiry was received to operate the premises as a public house”.
	However, we cannot know how competitive those terms were, or, indeed, what other bars there were to people seeking to run the premises as a pub. Nor can I judge how significantly the beer tie acted as a deterrent to potential publicans, but I am convinced it played a part. The tie, the nervousness with which publicans regard possible abuses of it, and the general uncertainty that exists in the industry as a whole have come together to present a very bleak picture.
	As we have heard repeatedly this afternoon, publicans just want to be able to earn a decent income—and must work incredibly hard to do so—and I believe that regulation is necessary to make that a possibility. Those in the trade seek certainty, fairness and reassurance that the Government are on their side, to ensure that they can run their business models.
	Time is of the essence. As we have heard, 26 pubs are closing each week, and the Stoneham Arms is just the latest in a long list of pubs in my constituency that have either been lost or come under serious threat. The Woodman, also in Bassett, is now a Tesco Express, and in the villages of my constituency many pubs have been boarded up. I do not pretend that that is just because of pub companies and beer ties. Indeed, a pub in my own road is currently being marketed, and as far I know it did not have a contract with a pub company. However, we know from CAMRA that the rate of closures is increasing, and that many in the trade are looking to the future and considering their positions very carefully.
	I realise that the Minister has heard a great many exhortations about timely action today. I welcome the amendment and the fact that it is supported by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), whom I have always regarded as something of an expert on this issue. As he has said, it has and deserves cross-party support. We have heard from the Secretary of State that statutory regulation is needed, and there is agreement on that among Members on both sides of the House, but it vital that when that is done it is done well, so that it works for the whole of the licensed trade and, indeed, its customers.

Andrew Griffiths: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in this important debate. I have been struggling to juggle the task of opening a new business in my constituency with my membership of the Care Bill Committee, so I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to speak—which I do as the Member of Parliament for Burton, which is the home of brewing and of two important pub companies.
	Given that I am the last Back-Bench speaker in the debate, it is unfortunate that it should fall to me to represent the voice of doom, but I must urge the House to think about the unintended consequences of what it calls for today. I listened intently to the very reasoned speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who uttered those words that strike fear into anyone who has been involved in the brewing and pub industry over the years: the Beer Orders. This is the single biggest factor that any Minister considering legislating in this area should consider. It is because of the Beer Orders and because of ill-thought-out legislation that we find ourselves in our present position, and I urge the House not to repeat those mistakes.
	All Members who have taken part in today’s debate have done so for the same reason. They want to see a healthy and successful pub industry, and they want our pubs to thrive and to succeed. However, I believe that the unintended consequences of the proposed regulations will cause many more pubs to close.
	It is important for the House to understand exactly what we are talking about when we refer to a free-of-tie option and to market rents. Let me cite the example of a pub company in my constituency, a brewery called Marston’s. It owns a number of pubs, which would be regulated under the proposed legislation. It has been operating for many years, and is a reputable business with a long and proud history. That brewery might have owned a pub for 30, 40 or 50 years, and run it extremely successfully. The tenant might retire or decide to do something else, and a new tenant might take over. Within months, that new tenant—despite having seen all the pub books and despite having had the business case assessed by his lawyer, his business adviser, his bank manager, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all, and despite knowing exactly what rent he would pay and what he would pay for beer—might decide that he wanted to become free of tie.
	What is now being proposed is not only that the Government should tell Marston’s what it can charge for beer and rent in a property that it may have owned for 50 or 60 years, but that we should then allow that tenant, paying a rent set by the Government, to sell beer that is not Marston’s. We can see the unintended consequences of successful pubs, well run by brewers, no longer selling the beer on which they were built.

Jim Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman has led a debate in the House on the same issue in the past, and it has still not been resolved. The situation he is describing actually happened between working men’s clubs and breweries. A number of clubs ran up a lot of debt that they owed to the brewers, and were then forced to sell their beer. How can we solve that problem? Many people in Coventry are concerned about pub closures.

Andrew Griffiths: As a young boy, I was more or less brought up in a working men’s club. I went to it every weekend. I recognise the importance of our working men’s clubs, and I know that a situation arose whereby clubs were in hock to the brewers. What we must bear in mind is that this is intervention in the marketplace that we would see nowhere else in business.

John McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman is advancing a coherent argument, but surely he does not oppose the introduction of an adjudicator. We have done that in other contexts, such as supermarkets.

Andrew Griffiths: I am certainly open to the idea of an adjudicator. My question is, who pays? It is estimated that the administration of an adjudicator could cost £1 million, which is a huge amount of money to take out of the beer and pub economy. Who is going to pay for what could be described as just another piece of red tape and Government regulation?
	I genuinely ask the Minister why she would want to sit in judgment on rent disputes or other commercial or contractual disputes between two businesses, especially when effective mechanisms are already in place that are unique to the pub sector, independent and funded by the industry. I ask her to consider carefully the Office of Fair Trading’s report to the consultation. It clearly expressed the view that the tie is not distorting the market, and states that the proposed intervention could result in a breakdown in economies of scale, leading to an increase in rents and prices that would affect tenants and consumers. I also urge the Minister to consider the report from London Economics, which her own Department requested. It suggests that more than 2,400 pubs could close as a direct result of the proposed intervention in the market.
	The reality is that many pub companies are nursing pubs because they cannot find a tenant or buyer for them. The proposed economic model would mean that those companies would have to free themselves of those pubs, which could lead to thousands of pubs closing in a very short time. I ask the Minister: why regulate? Is there a consumer issue involved? Not according to the Office of Fair Trading. Would regulation help the smaller brewers? Certainly not, according to the Society of Independent Brewers. That organisation represents the micro-breweries. We have heard people rejoicing today that those breweries have flourished and blossomed. There are now 1,000 micro-breweries operating in this country as a result of the progressive beer duty introduced by the previous Government—I commend them for that—so why would we want to interfere in the market, given that those brewers have clearly stated that to do so would prevent their access to the market?

Brian H Donohoe: I used to run a licensed premises myself, so I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he has not really addressed the issue before us today. Why are so many pubs closing? Why, in his opinion, is that happening?

Andrew Griffiths: I think that you would become apoplectic, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I were to wax lyrical on why pubs are closing. We all know that it is due to changing social demographics, to the fact that
	people are spending more time at home, to the drink-driving laws and to the supermarkets. There are many reasons—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	And, yes, the smoking ban. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) gesticulates as though he is puffing on a cigarette. I completely agree with him on that point. The previous Government introduced the smoking ban and, at a stroke, closed thousands of wet-trade pubs without putting in place any support for the pubs or the industry. He has pointed out another unintended consequence of legislation. It was a good idea that we stopped smoking in pubs—they have a nicer environment as a result—but the unintended consequence was that many of them closed.
	The danger is that we repeat those mistakes in the proposed regulation. We would not expect McDonald’s franchisees to be able to sell Kentucky Fried Chicken products because they thought there would be more profit in doing so. Why, then, should we want a Marston’s pub to be forced to sell other people’s beer as a result of the proposed regulation?

Bob Stewart: Would it not help licensees if Marston’s could reduce the price of its beer to a market level? Would that not make their pubs more sustainable? Reducing the price of beer in that way would help a heck of a lot, without the need for any intervention.

Andrew Griffiths: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for his support for our cross-party campaign to reduce beer duty. That campaign did a lot to help publicans, and I hope I will be able to call on his support again as we move forward.

Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend has mentioned the difficulties involved in reaching a solution, as I tried to do in my speech. Does he agree that one clear way for the Government to help pubs would be to cut the tax charged on beer, which can amount to 37% on the average pint? That is a huge amount of money, and any tax cut would benefit customers and landlords.

Andrew Griffiths: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The previous Government increased the duty by 60% during their time in office, and it is no wonder that 9,000 pubs closed on their watch as a result.

Brian H Donohoe: I recall a previous debate on beer, which I think was led by the hon. Gentleman. I made an intervention on that occasion to ask about whisky and other spirits. It is now known that spirits account for 40% of the sales in pubs, so would he include them in his calculations, as well as beer?

Andrew Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the vast majority of a pub’s income comes from the sale of beer. We brew beer in this country; it is something that we are fantastic at doing. It is a British product—

Brian H Donohoe: Whisky is as well.

Andrew Griffiths: Of course, and whisky is a great product, but the hon. Gentleman will also know that the whisky industry is growing and that the vast majority of that growth is coming from exports, whereas the beer industry is in decline, and beer is produced and sold uniquely in this country.
	I recognise that I am in the wilderness here, but I urge the Minister, colleagues and all Members who are considering how to vote in this debate not to introduce red tape and regulation that will force more pubs to close and create a further decline in the great British pub.

Ian Murray: First, may I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), to her post? She has taken over the role from the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) whom we congratulate on the birth of her son, Andrew, and we pass on our regards to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), who participated in the early part of this debate.
	We have had yet another constructive debate on pub companies and their relationship with their tenants, but I cannot help but feel a significant sense of déjà vu. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) said in opening the debate, it would not be January without his staying off the alcohol for a month—I could flippantly say that he keeps off paying for it for the other 11 months of the year—and without our having a debate on pubcos. This is the third such Opposition day debate—that is, this Opposition are using our own parliamentary time to continue to raise this important issue and keep the pressure on the Government, stressing that they are doing too little, too late and too slowly.
	It is important that we should continue to re-emphasise the contribution that pubs make to our local economies and local communities. Each pub employs an average of 10 people, often young people who find it particularly hard to find work in other sectors. They provide skills in customer service, management and training. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is no longer in his place but he talked about training, which allows me to mention the Montpelier group in Edinburgh, which set up its own training academy for people who work in its pubs and restaurants. It deserves great commendation for the work it does on that in Edinburgh.
	The role of the licensee is very difficult, as I should know—I was a licensee of a hotel and two licensed premises before becoming an MP. It is the combination of pubcos and decisions by Governments of all political persuasions that has pushed prices up for the consumer, which has subsequently undermined the competitiveness of these organisations and, indeed, other activities. We need to look at what can be done by Government.

Jim Cunningham: I hope my hon. Friend will cover the new idea of local people buying their own pubs and setting up community pubs. Some football clubs are doing that as well. What does he think about that as a way forward?

Ian Murray: I think it is fantastic that communities are able to bid for pubs. It is happening in Scotland as well, under the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, I have a small vested interest in that, because I am leading a consortium of fans looking to buy Heart of Midlothian football club. Community ownership—or at least having
	the opportunity to go into community ownership—is the way forward for lots of industries that have a tie to the local community.
	The combination of high rents and tied barrelage costs means that a pubco tenant must sell a pint at a price level that allows some reasonable profit margin. That level is well above what non-tied premises can charge, which makes the pubco tenants uncompetitive and pushes up the price for the consumer. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) mentioned, barrelage costs can be 50% higher in tied premises than in non-tied premises, which can distort the market in terms of how much tied premises need to charge the customer. Add to that an increase in VAT to 20% and we have a cocktail of disaster for the publican.

Brian H Donohoe: As my hon. Friend was a pub licensee, he will know that in a tied pub it is not only beer prices that are tied but the spirits and everything else that is sold. I know that from my own experience.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend is right to raise that because it is indeed the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield mentioned that too, when he said that the ties can be on wet sales, dry sales and gaming machines, and they can mean compulsory courses, compulsory training, compulsory licensing and using highly inflated contracts through the pub companies for, for example, statutory checks like electrical checks.

Mark Lazarowicz: My constituency has a large number of excellent pubs of distinction, and my hon. Friend may well have visited some of them from time to time. They are also major sources of employment in the area. How would the proposals in the motion assist employment in that very important sector in my constituency and others across the country?

Ian Murray: There is a simple formula on employment in the licensed trade: the more successful a premises is, the more people it is likely to employ. The entrepreneurial nature of people in these small businesses running licensed premises means that they tend to want to get more licensed premises and expand what they are doing, so this is very good for employment. I declare an interest again, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have visited some of the hostelries in my hon. Friend’s constituency, some of which are rather nice, and I encourage others to do likewise.
	I was talking about the double whammy of Government decisions and the tied contracts pushing up prices to the consumer, which perpetuates the demise of licensed premises. We must also consider the ever-increasing energy bills, the spiralling rates and the costs of other non-alcoholic supplies such as food, which are rising much faster than tenants are able to pass on to their customers. More has to be done to deal with all those other relationships, and I hope the Government will back Labour’s policy on both energy and business rates to enable us to bring some of those other pressures down.

Mark Pritchard: It is important that we talk about the financial structures of pub companies and pubs, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise the
	important social function of pubs such as The Bull’s Head in Rodington, The Cock Hotel in Wellington and the Plough Inn in Shifnal, all of which are in my constituency? They have a link to CAMRA and the flexibility of being able to bring in real ales so that everyone can enjoy them in the community at the right levels.

Ian Murray: I am delighted that I gave the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to mention a lot of the pubs in his constituency—I hope that is reciprocated. As he rightly says, pubs provide a community benefit, and many of the premises I have frequented, and one I used to run, had the local Rotary club there raising a lot of money for charity, so the community part of the pub is very well established.
	I wish to reflect on the relationship between tenants and the pubco owners of the premises, which has been mentioned. One thing I found galling when I ran one of my own premises was that our business development manager took great delight in telling us which tenants he was fining that week for buying out, which they had to do to make a small living. That kind of behaviour and culture in the pubcos highlights the problem we face. We must also address the issue of inaccurate information being provided when people are making big decisions, particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield alluded to, when they are putting life savings into these premises; they have to make sure that the information they get is accurate.

Greg Mulholland: I thought it might be useful to intervene because I have something of an answer on the question of jobs. The research from the Federation of Small Businesses showed that the market rent only option would lead to 9,888 pubs in the UK taking on more staff, which would be worth £48 million in wages.

Ian Murray: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. I only hope that he changes his mind and votes with us in the Lobby. It was striking that he said he would not be voting with us, given that he sent an e-mail to all Members yesterday encouraging them to do so. It is a shame that he will not change his mind, although he still has time.
	Let me now deal with the remarks by the Secretary of State, whom I am delighted to see back in his place. He mentioned that he was drinking “mocktails” on his trade mission to the United Arab Emirates, and I wish him well in there. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, a “mocktail” is a cocktail without alcohol. The Secretary of State has invented a brand new word in today’s debate, because he has developed a “molicy”, which is a Government policy without legislation. He refused time and again to commit to bringing legislation forward in the Queen’s Speech. Why? It was because he probably does not want to bring it forward or he is being pressed not to do so. Despite making the case for urgency, he does not seem to be doing this. To continue the puns, he seems to be serving the pub trade very much a short measure in his response to this debate, .
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) rightly highlighted the numerous reports produced by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report, which are strewn over the Table. I can count 10 in front of us that have looked at this issue, so the Government
	do have a great degree of direction on which way they may wish to go. He was right to say that we have been round this issue time and again. He also talked about the considerable coalition for action that we have heard about, and we need to take cognisance of the number of people who have been looking at this matter.
	The hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) blamed the previous Labour Government for some of the problems. I was delighted when the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), highlighted that, because the conclusions of the 2009-10 report, which came out just before the general election, included the sentence:
	“The industry must be aware that this is its last opportunity for self-regulated reform.”
	It is clear that the reason the previous Labour Government did not take a statutory approach was that they were listening to the influential Select Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) said that there was broad agreement on the matter in the House, but that Members and publicans become frustrated when the Government do not take the right action. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), despite her tour of both Norwich and Huddersfield, was sober enough to notice that there is little legislation on the Government’s current agenda and that there is time to promote this issue, and we hope that the Government will be able to do that before this Session finishes, or in the Queen’s Speech in May.
	In their amendment to our motion on this subject last year, the Government said that they would create an adjudicator; they have done that already with the groceries code. This year’s amendment tends to row back from that. We cannot help but think that they are kicking the matter into the long grass, as they did with the zero-hours contracts until they were forced into action by the Opposition. The window of opportunity for a Bill before the general election is rapidly diminishing. The Government must introduce a Bill in the next Queen’s Speech; otherwise, there will be insufficient parliamentary time to pass it. Without such a Bill, we face starting the next Parliament with even more reports telling us how broken the pubco market is.
	The Government must support our motion today and set in place a statutory code that allows a mandatory free-of-tie option, independent rate reviews and an independent adjudicator with teeth. That is what this House wants, what it has consistently voted for and what we are asking the Government to do. If the Government do anything else, they will yet again be seen to be failing to stand up to vested interests and to back the local pub.

Jennifer Willott: I thank the many Members who have spoken so passionately in the debate today. Almost all of us have heard tales of hardship from constituents who have worked in the pub industry. The need for action has been shown across the House. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) appears to be the only one here who currently owns a pub, albeit closed, but there are clearly a number of Members who have an understanding of the industry.

Barry Sheerman: As my pub is soon to be crowdsourced, the hon. Lady can become a member.

Jennifer Willott: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on giving probably the best plug to his business, which has been mentioned four or five times in today’s debate—crowdsourcing will clearly not be a problem from now on.
	A number of Members who have spoken have previously worked in the licensed trade, so they have been speaking from knowledge not only as constituency Members but as former licensees and so on, which has lent weight to the debate. My thanks go to the members of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and their Chair, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). He and his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff), have done crucial work over the years to raise awareness of this issue. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton South (Mr Binley) and for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) on their tireless work over a number of years.
	Finally, I thank the wide range of people who responded to the Government’s consultation, including tenants, brewers, pub companies and their employees, interest groups, trade bodies, supply chain companies and consumers. Indeed, a number of Members from all parts of the House also submitted their views.
	We have heard a number of stories from Members whose constituents are facing real hardship and adversity, which is clearly worrying. In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) name-checked a large number of pubs that have been mentioned in previous debates, so I will not do the same. I would, however, like to highlight some of the Members who have given a passionate defence of pubs: my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West, for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), the hon. Member for Huddersfield, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell), the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) and my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Burton (Andrew Griffiths). That illustrates how important pubs are to a diverse range of communities across the UK. The constituencies about which Members have spoken today range from the urban to the rural and have very different issues, and that shows just how important pubs are.
	As many Members have mentioned, over the course of a decade there have been four Select Committee investigations into the relationship between pub companies and their tenants and into whether a tied model causes an imbalance in bargaining power. The Government have received a large amount of correspondence from tenants about problems in their relationship with their pub company as well as from many hon. Members writing on behalf of constituents.
	Although many pub companies behave well and some tenants have written in support of the tie, many others tell us that the tie arrangements with their pub companies are unfair and that a lack of transparency in particular causes a severe imbalance in negotiating power. Another issue that has been highlighted during today’s debate is
	the research commissioned by CAMRA based on self-reported income, showing that more than half of tied tenants earn less than £10,000 a year compared with only a quarter of those who are free of tie. The problems faced by tenants are real and clearly something needs to be done.
	The Government consulted on the creation of a statutory code of practice to govern the relationship between large pub companies and their tenants and of an independent adjudicator to enforce the code. As a number of Members have highlighted, the proposals would represent a real step change for the industry, offering tenants the protection of a code of practice enshrined in statute and an independent and reliable body to which they could turn for assistance—[Interruption.]
	The proposed code has at its core two important principles: the principle of fair dealing and the principle that a tied tenant should be no worse off—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. This has been a very important debate and everyone has been listened to quietly and with respect. There are far too many conversations going on and I cannot hear the Minister, who is speaking perfectly clearly. If Members are in the Chamber, they should be listening to the Minister. If they want to talk to each other, they should go outside.

Jennifer Willott: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I completely agree; I have to say similar things to my children when they are bickering, as some Members appear to be today.
	The two core principles at the heart of the code are fundamental. As the consultation made clear, there is a problem in the relationship between pub-owning companies and their tenants, and that was backed up by pretty much every Member who has spoken today.

Alison Seabeck: On the consultation and the Government’s work on the adjudicator role, have the Government come up with a figure for the cost of that adjudicator? That question was asked by Government Members.

Jennifer Willott: As the hon. Lady will know, we are evaluating the responses and we will publish our response as soon as we can. That will give much more information about what we propose to do and the costs and impacts of those proposals.

Brian H Donohoe: Will the Minister give way?

Jennifer Willott: I am afraid that I am very short of time and the hon. Gentleman has already intervened a number of times, so I will not.
	The purpose of the consultation was to consider the proposals to address the problems in the relationship between pub-owning companies and their tenants, rather than to rehash the problems that we all know to be there. That leads me on to the response to the consultation; I emphasise again that the volume of responses we received was staggering, demonstrating the depth of feeling on the issue.
	We received more than 1,100 written responses and more than 7,000 responses to the online questionnaire. One of those responses was 2,000 pages long, so the
	amount of evidence we have received is significant. That also shows that the situation is not as simple as some people have portrayed it, as illustrated by the speeches made by a number of Members today—not least those made by my hon. Friends the Members for Burton, for Tewkesbury and for East Hampshire and the hon. Member for Huddersfield. They raised concerns about what should be done to tackle the problems, including mentioning the views of the OFT, and highlighted that the matter is not simple but is far more complex than has been suggested by those on the Opposition Front Bench.
	The responses to the consultation came from a wide range of interested parties. Since we published the responses online in December, they have been read several thousand times. If hon. Members have had the opportunity to look at even a little of the evidence that has been submitted—I am fairly sure that no one will have read the 2,000-page submission—they will see that views are often polarised on the degree and the nature of the problem, and what the best solutions would be. That has also been seen in today’s debate. The 2011 report of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee noted that the evidence
	“demonstrates a high level of acrimony within the industry and is littered with claims and counter-claims”,
	which just shows that it is important to make sure that we get this right.
	The breadth and depth of views expressed in the Chamber today and in the consultation help to illustrate what a complex issue this is, particularly if we aim to design a solution that is both effective and proportionate. As some hon. Members have highlighted today, the tie itself is not necessarily a problem; it is abuse of the tie that is the problem. Nor is the tie the only problem facing pubs, so finding the right solution is a complex matter.
	As hon. Members have also highlighted, the Government had intended to publish their response to the consultation by the end of 2013. I know that those who are affected by the proposals, whether tenants or businesses, need clarity from us. This is, however, a complicated issue, and it is really important that we get the decision right. The excellent response to the consultation has created a broad evidence base upon which we can make our decision, and the evidence spans the range of proposals that we have discussed today, including the market rent only option, and puts us in a good position to make the right decision to ensure a fairer and more sustainable pubs industry.
	We intend to publish the Government’s response to the consultation as soon as we can, but we are working to reach a proportionate solution that delivers greater fairness for Britain’s publicans. We believe fundamentally that a tied tenant should be no worse off than a free-of-tie tenant. The beer and pubs sector makes a significant and valuable contribution not only to our economy, although that has been highlighted in today’s debate, but also to the more intangible benefits of social cohesion and a sense of community. We want to support a fair and flourishing pub sector, which is why we removed the beer duty escalator, as has been mentioned by hon. Members, and reduced the tax on beer in last year’s Budget. It is also why we support the community right-to-buy scheme, which several hon. Members have mentioned today, and why we are giving £19 million to help communities to take advantage of the scheme.
	By ensuring that tied tenants are treated fairly and putting an end to the abuses of the tied model, we will create a sustainable and fairer industry to enable pubs to remain as mainstays of our communities, and that will be good for publicans, pubs and the public.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 244, Noes 311.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 311, Noes 246.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the opportunity to debate the issue of fairness in the relationship between publicans and pub owning companies; notes the concerns, acknowledged by the Government in January 2013, about the failure of pub company self-regulation to rebalance risk and reward between the companies and their tenants and lessees; recognises the excellent work and the four Reports that the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee and predecessor Committees have produced over the years on this issue; further notes that the previous Government failed to take any position on this important issue until February 2010, just two months before the dissolution of Parliament and the end of its term in office; further notes that this Government held the first ever consultation to explore how best to protect tenants and lessees through a statutory code of practice backed by an independent adjudicator; further notes that this consultation received a very large response and that it is right that the Government carefully considers the huge volume of the evidence received as part of this consultation before publishing its response as soon as it can in 2014.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the ending of preventative measures allowed under Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) for six terrorist suspects in January 2014, including individuals that the Home Secretary considers to pose a risk to the security of the United Kingdom through terrorism-related activity; notes the decision made by the Home Secretary to end TPIM controls after two years regardless of whether she assesses individuals are likely to involve themselves in terrorism-related activity; is concerned that the Home Secretary has provided to Parliament no assessment of the current threat these individuals may pose to the public through terrorist-related activity, and notes the recent finding of Mr Justice Wilkie that the Secretary of State does not accept that there is a general duty to tailor measures towards the end of a TPIM in order to facilitate assimilation; further notes the disappearance of two terrorist suspects subject to TPIMs, Ibrahim Magag and Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed; calls on the Government to make a statement to Parliament on the threat of terrorist-related activity posed by the six suspects exiting TPIMs, and to share the full assessment from the Security Service with the Intelligence and Security Committee; and further calls on the Government to establish a cross-party review of TPIMs in the light of these assessments to decide whether changes are needed to protect the security and liberty of the United Kingdom.
	By the end of this week up to six terror suspects will have all their restrictions removed so that they can walk the streets of Britain unhindered. These six men were previously considered sufficiently dangerous by the Home Secretary and the courts that they were subject to terrorism prevention and investigation measures, with their communications and movements restricted to prevent terror-related activity. According to the courts, one was a suspected suicide bomber planning to blow up an airline; one was planning a firearms attack, either in the UK or abroad; one was trying to join terrorists in Somalia and another was trying to join Islamist terrorists in Syria; a fifth was accused of fundraising and supporting terror activity in Pakistan; and a sixth was accused of planning attacks and fundraising for al-Shabaab, the group responsible for the awful attacks at Nairobi’s Westgate centre last year.
	We know how dangerous the court and the Home Secretary believed these men were even just 12 months ago, when their TPIMs were renewed. The Home Secretary needs to tell us today whether she believes they are still dangerous now. Their TPIMs are not being removed because the Home Secretary has changed her security assessment; they are being removed because the Home Secretary changed policy and legislation three years ago. We need answers today on the risk each of these men poses and on what action she has taken to reduce the risk. Parliament also needs to know whether TPIMs are still fit for purpose, or whether reforms are needed in the interests of public safety.

Julian Huppert: Can the right hon. Lady be clear on her position? Is it her view that people who have been accused but never convicted should be held under such measures indefinitely? That is the consequence of what she is saying.

Yvette Cooper: I will make a little progress and set out our concerns and views. We have always raised concerns about the introduction of the two-year time limit, because
	we believe that that raises serious questions. We also want nobody to be under control orders or TPIMs longer than is necessary, so it is right that they are continually reviewed. However, it is also right that we make sure that concern for public safety is at the heart of the debate, and that is what we need to discuss today.

Gerry Sutcliffe: My right hon. Friend is talking about the answers we need. Promises were made to the Bill Committee—I was on it—and Parliament about the cost of TPIMs, but we have never got to the bottom of how much those costs have increased by. Would she like to comment on that?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. Figures were given in briefings to newspapers of about £50 million of additional funding to the security services and the police as a result of the switch from control orders to TPIMs, but it would be helpful to have that figure confirmed by the Government. In addition, however, we do not know whether extra resources are being provided for the ending of TPIMs. That clearly creates additional pressures on the police and security services.
	This country has always to be vigilant against terrorism, and we should thank the police and our security and intelligence services, which do a difficult job incredibly well, often behind the scenes and unnoticed. According to the independent reviewer of terrorism, the threat of a terror attack directly by al-Qaeda has decreased since the mid-2000s, but the threat from its affiliates and its power to motivate other extremists and provide training and planning support all remain. Over this Parliament, we have seen attempted bomb plots in the west midlands, plans to attack a Territorial Army base and target Wootton Bassett, and of course the dreadful murder of Drummer Lee Rigby last summer.
	UK nationals attempting to travel overseas to fight and train are also potential threats to the UK, both to our interests and citizens abroad and to us here when they return home. The independent reviewer has warned that the Syrian conflict might begin to rival the traditional threat from al-Qaeda core and regions north of Pakistan. We need to be vigilant against these threats and ensure that the British people are protected, and to ensure that the terrorists do not divide us or undermine our democratic values. The laws we pass against terrorism need always to be proportionate and fair.
	That is why, like control orders before them, TPIMs are exceptional powers and should be used only in exceptional circumstances, but there are difficult cases: where there is substantial evidence that someone poses a terror risk, but where convictions cannot be achieved—for example, if they depend on secret intelligence that cannot be used in court. Given the risk of harm and potential loss of life from terror attacks, Parliament and our courts have long supported preventive measures based on a clear legal procedure, with safeguards to reduce the risk to the public.
	Three years ago, however, the Home Secretary decided to weaken those terror powers by replacing control orders with TPIMs, putting a two-year limit on each one and removing relocation and other restrictions from them. She said there would be a greater focus on prosecution and imprisonment.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the narrative being put out by the Conservative part of the coalition is that the
	legislative change that brought in TPIMs was a result of their coalition partners, the Liberals? Was not the start of this, however, in the Conservative party’s 2010 manifesto?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I want to come to that. The Home Secretary ducks the issue if she simply blames the Liberal Democrats for this change in legislation, because she introduced it and Conservative MPs voted for, supported and defended it at every stage of its passage through the House, even when we raised questions and concerns.

Michael Ellis: rose—

Mark Tami: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I want to make some progress, because I have not yet reached the main substance of my speech, but I will briefly give way to the hon. Gentleman and then my hon. Friend.

Michael Ellis: Does the right hon. Lady not accept that it was the courts of law in this country that criticised and weakened the control orders that her Government set up—the courts sounded their death knell—and that any Home Secretary has to establish a proper legal framework for the orders of this country to subsist?

Yvette Cooper: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong, and he knows he is wrong because he asked exactly that question of David Anderson, the independent terrorism reviewer, in the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The reply from David Anderson was clear. He said that control orders had not been undermined by the courts and had in fact been upheld by then—that the principle had been upheld and individual control orders had been upheld. Of course it is right for control orders to be scrutinised in the courts, as it is right for TPIMs to be scrutinised. However, the independent reviewer was absolutely clear: it was not the courts undermining control orders, nor was it the courts that decided to replace them with the weaker TPIMs; it was the Government.

Mark Tami: My right hon. Friend touched on relocation, which was one of the most effective parts of control orders, but it is now being replaced by a costly system that cannot work as effectively.

Yvette Cooper: The concern for us is that the weakening of the terror powers has led to additional costs. We simply do not know what additional costs there might be now as a result of ending control orders for up to six people this month.
	The Prime Minister told the House earlier this month that TPIMs “are working”, but the verdict on TPIMs, two years on, is very different. According to the independent reviewer, there have been no successful prosecutions, despite all the Home Secretary’s promises. The removal of relocation powers has badly backfired. No one relocated as part of their control order ever absconded, yet the Home Secretary removed relocation powers and lost two out of 10 suspects in 12 months. Ibrahim Magag ran off in a black cab; Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed ran off in a burqa. They have not been seen since, and the Home Secretary and Prime Minister have no idea where
	they are. The Prime Minister calls this a successful policy, yet 20% of the terror suspects on TPIMs have disappeared within a year.
	We want to concentrate on the six men expected to be released from TPIMs this month. The House warned the Home Secretary of the risks that she was taking by restricting TPIMs to two years regardless of the security assessment unless fresh terrorist activity had occurred. Here is what Mr Justice Collins said about her legislation:
	“if a TPIM has achieved its purpose and the Home Secretary has no reason to believe that any terrorist related activity has occurred, there will be no power to impose a fresh TPIM whether or not…the Secretary of State has reason to believe the subject will involve himself in terrorist related activity.”
	In other words, if the TPIM works to prevent terrorist activity, there is no possibility of the Home Secretary extending it, even if she has good reason to believe that that terror suspect remains a serious risk and will return to terrorist activity straight away.
	If that is the case, Parliament needs to know the extent of the risk that these men pose now, and the Home Secretary needs to give us this simple piece of information: does she believe that these six men are still likely to pursue terror-related activity: yes or no? The courts said they were likely to do that 12 months ago. Does she believe they are now? Are these men still a risk: yes or no? She cannot claim that she does not comment on individual cases, because she already has done. Public statements have been made about these men and the risks they pose.
	Let us take the person known as CD—one of the men whose TPIM expires this month. The Security Service said he was trying to procure firearms for a terrorist attack in the UK. Just over a year ago, the judge agreed he was too dangerous to remove the TPIM controls. The judge said at that point that
	“the evidence that CD has been involved in terrorist activity is overall stronger now than it was”.
	He also said that the
	“control order and now TPIM are having something of their intended effect, but that is very different from saying that the TPIM should be ended…there remains a network, his views and determination are unchanged, he has training”.
	What has changed since then? Have CD’s views and determination changed? Has his network changed? Or is there still a significant risk that he will try to get firearms or other weapons again to pursue a UK attack? The Security Service and the judge told us a year ago that this man was a serious risk; now the Home Secretary is removing all his restrictions. We have a right to know whether she still thinks he is a risk or whether that risk has gone. I will give way to the Home Secretary if she will tell us now whether CD is still a risk. [Interruption.]The Home Secretary has chosen not to intervene to answer the specific question about whether CD remains a risk.

Pete Wishart: Is the right hon. Lady really telling us that she is going to take us back to the bad old days of Labour’s anti-civil-libertarian state, with its control orders, ID cards, national database and 90-day detention? Is that where new Labour is going to take us once again?

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman, too, should want this information and these answers from the Home Secretary. Whatever his views about the legislation,
	he ought to want answers from the Home Secretary about whether CD still presents a risk. Our view is that it is right to have exceptional legislation, but that strong safeguards should also be in place. Sometimes there is a need for clear powers, but clear safeguards must also be in place. There should be provision to review TPIMs or control orders to make sure that they are used only where it is proportionate and justified. However, the Home Secretary should provide answers about whether she is needlessly putting people at risk as a result of the decisions she has taken.

Hazel Blears: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the independent review of David Anderson recommended that consideration be given to an additional power at the end of a TPIM to provide something similar to licence conditions when people are released from prison. At the moment, there is no legislation to provide any degree of control once the TPIM is ended. Does my right hon. Friend think it a good idea to introduce such provisions into the TPIMs legislation so that if we do not have a TPIM, we at least have something akin to licence conditions on the release of prisoners?

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As we understand it, no restrictions will be in place for these six men, regardless of the security risk. We do not know what the security assessment of these six men is; that is why the Home Secretary needs to tell us. She may now believe that they are no longer a risk and that no further restrictions are needed. If further restrictions are needed, however, we need to know what they are. We are happy to engage in a cross-party discussion about whether further legislation and changes are needed, but we need answers from the Home Secretary on the security assessment of these men.
	Let us take the man known as AM, for example. The Government have argued that he was part of
	“a viable plot to commit mass murder by bringing down transatlantic airlines by suicide bombing”.
	Here is what the judge said just 18 months ago:
	“But for the disruption of the transatlantic airlines plot, there is every reason to believe that AM would have killed himself and a large number of other people.”
	Those are the judge’s words. He also said that
	“convincing evidence of a change of heart was required before the Secretary of State could reasonably consider that the need to protect members of the public from a risk of terrorism had gone or been reduced to a level at which preventative measures were no longer required.”
	The Home Secretary has now removed those preventative measures. Does she believe that there has been
	“convincing evidence of a change of heart”?
	Does she have evidence that
	“the need to protect members of the public from a risk of terrorism”
	has gone? I have cited what the court said 18 months ago, but what does the Home Secretary say about AM now? Once again, I give her the opportunity to intervene to answer the question whether she believes that AM is still a risk.
	There are others, such as the man known as BF. Just seven months ago, the Home Secretary described him as a
	“long term, committed and historically well connected extremist”
	who
	“maintains a desire to travel overseas and he would seek to travel after restrictions are removed and he would seek to engage in terrorist related activities.”
	That was seven months ago; what has changed? Is he still a risk; yes or no? Then there is the man known as CE. The Home Secretary told the courts that he was trying to travel to Somalia to engage in terror-related activity and that he was linked to a UK-based network of Islamist extremists who are fundraising and supporting terrorism in Somalia. Is he still a risk; yes or no?
	The courts confirmed nine months ago that CF had attempted to travel to Afghanistan to engage in suicide operations, while the Security Service said he was fundraising for al-Shabaab and recruiting fighters from the UK. Is he still a risk? The man known as BM is accused of fundraising for terrorist organisations in Pakistan and of trying to travel there to engage in terror-related activities. Is he still a risk?

Ian Paisley Jnr: Perhaps the Member known as YC will tell the House what measures she would introduce to replace those to which she is referring.

Yvette Cooper: That is an important question. We think that the decision about the framework must depend on the security assessment, to which the Government have access but we do not. We believe that it was wrong to introduce the two-year limit in the first place, and wrong to remove the relocation powers. That was our view when the legislation was passed, and we continue to be concerned about those issues. However, we are willing to work with the Government and with other parties, on a cross-party basis, to consider what the framework should be now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) advanced important proposals which have also been advanced by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. There may be other options, and we think it important for those to be debated, but they need to be debated in the light of the security assessment.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the right hon. Lady agree with the independent reviewer that there should be a licence system, or does she recognise its weakness?

Yvette Cooper: The independent reviewer’s proposals should be looked at very seriously. As I have said, there may be other options, such as the extension of time limits. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, any set of proposals will involve limitations. This is the kind of debate we ought to be having in Parliament, but it needs to be informed by that proper security assessment.

Richard Fuller: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: I will give way once more, but I must then make some progress, because I know that many other Members wish to speak.

Richard Fuller: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady; I know that she wants to move on. Do I understand from her response to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that her understanding of justice in this case is that the group of people concerned should not be allowed to see the evidence that will be presented in a trial that they will not actually undergo, and that they should then be forcibly relocated from their communities and kept in detention for at least 23 hours a day, for an indefinite period? Is that the Labour party’s view of justice in this case?

Yvette Cooper: No. We have made it clear throughout the passage of the legislation that these measures should be used only in very exceptional circumstances, and that there must also be a court procedure. There must be legal safeguards, and there must be judicial processes. I have cited the views of the judges, not just the views of the Security Service and the Home Secretary. However, we must also recognise that there are some cases in which it is very difficult to prosecute in the courts because of secret intelligence, and the risk to human sources who may put their lives at risk by providing that important information.
	The Home Secretary should tell us this: does she still believe that each of the six men whose restrictions she is now removing poses a terror threat—yes or no? She told us 12 months ago that the answer was yes, because she renewed their TPIMs, but what is her answer now? We know what she thought of those men when she imposed the restrictions, but surely it is even more important for us to know the risk when she takes those restrictions away. We are not asking her to show Parliament the detailed Security Service assessment—she should show that to the Intelligence and Security Committee—but we are asking her to inform us of her conclusions, and to give us as much detail as she gave publicly to the courts.
	The Home Secretary gave us her security assessment when Magag and Mohamed ran off. She told us then that she did not believe they posed any risk to people in the United Kingdom. If she could tell us that much about those two terror suspects once they were out on the streets without restrictions, why can she not do the same now in relation to all the others?
	People change and risk levels change. If the risk has been reduced, restrictive measures may no longer be justified, in which case they should certainly be removed. We support the removal of restrictions as soon as they are no longer justified. Over the last decade, control orders have rightly been removed from more than 30 people because they were not longer justified. Terror powers such as these must always be kept under review, but the Home Secretary has removed these restrictions not because they are no longer justified but because of her legislation, the legislation she pushed through Parliament. How can Parliament assess whether that legislation was right, and whether she has done the right thing, without knowing the continued risk that any of these men is expected to pose?
	We also need to know what action the Home Secretary has taken to prepare for the end of TPIMs. The independent reviewer warned us some time ago that serious planning should be done to work with those individuals to reduce the risk once the restrictions were removed. Has that happened? Has any work been done with them to
	address their extremism? Judge Wilkie suggests not. On the basis of the evidence that the Home Secretary submitted to the court, he said that she
	“does not accept that there is a general duty to tailor measures towards the end of a TPIM in order to facilitate assimilation.”
	What planning has taken place to cope with the restrictions being removed? The Home Secretary has told us that the Metropolitan police have a plan for each person, but will she ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee is shown those plans? Will she also tell us what those plans will cost? When control orders were downgraded to TPIMs two years ago, the Government provided extra funding for surveillance and investigations. However, that extra funding was clearly not enough to ensure that there was sufficient surveillance on Mohamed and Magag, who were able to abscond, or enough to deliver successful prosecutions. That reduction from control orders to TPIMs will have put additional pressure on the resources of the police and the security services, but surely the ending of TPIMs for those suspects altogether will put even greater pressure on those resources now, as there are no restrictions in place. Has any additional funding been made available to cope with the ending of TPIMs for those men, or will surveillance resources have to be redeployed from other important targets?
	Before the Home Secretary stands up to answer my questions, let me address some of the points that she usually makes in her defence, as well as some new ones that she has added to her list in the past few days. She usually argues that control orders were not strong enough, and that people absconded while subject to them. She and I agree that the control orders without relocation powers, under the regime that operated before 2007, were not strong enough, but that is why the control order regime was tightened up in 2007 with a greater focus being placed on relocation, after which no one absconded. My response to that was to say that we should keep the relocation powers. Hers was to ditch them. She has lost two terror suspects as a result.
	The Home Secretary has now come up with two new defences. She has told the Daily Mail that the problem was the fault of the Human Rights Act, and she has told The Sun that it was the fault of the Liberal Democrats. Both claims are nonsense. She has also tried to claim that control orders had to be reformed because they were being undermined in the courts. The independent reviewer has made it clear, both to the Home Affairs Committee and in other statements, that the courts have repeatedly upheld the principle of control orders and upheld individuals’ cases time and again. The independent reviewer has said:
	“The replacement of control orders by TPIMs was a political decision. It was not prompted by any court judgment, either from the United Kingdom or from Strasbourg.”
	As for the idea that this was all the Liberal Democrats’ fault, the Deputy Prime Minister is not even strong enough to sort out the problems in his own party. No one believes that he is strong enough to make the Home Secretary put forward legislation that she does not agree with. Let us remember what she said at the time. She made it clear that it was her legislation, not his. She defended every one of the changes, including the two-year limit, the end of relocation and the granting of extra freedoms. Indeed, she was proud that she was
	“re-striking the balance between national security and civil liberties.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 71.]
	The Home Secretary cannot blame the Liberal Democrats, the Human Rights Act or the courts. She has only herself to blame if she does not like the consequences of her legislation. We need to know what she is going to do now, however. What is the risk to the public from those six men? What is the risk to the public from her legislation? What is she doing about this? She told us three years ago:
	“Where successful prosecution or deportation is not possible, however, no responsible Government could allow dangerous individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 69.]
	So can she now get up and tell us that she is not doing exactly that? Can she put her hand on her heart and tell us she is confident that she is doing the right thing for the British people by removing those TPIMs from those six individuals this month? And if she is really as uncomfortable with her own legislation as her briefings to the newspapers suggest, is it not time that she backed down and set up a cross-party review to look at this legislation again?

Theresa May: Since 11 September 2001 successive Governments have grappled with the problem of how to deal with terrorist suspects who can neither be prosecuted nor deported. The last Government first introduced the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act in November 2001. This legislation effectively introduced detention without trial for foreign terrorist suspects who could be held pending deportation even when that deportation was unlikely ever to happen. In 2004 the Law Lords struck down those powers.
	We later had the extraordinary spectacle of the attempt to increase the period of pre-charge detention to 90 days, which was rightly defeated by Parliament, and in 2005 the last Government introduced control orders, but control orders too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) has said, were steadily eroded by the courts. Three control orders were quashed because the courts said they were wrong in principle, two control orders were revoked because the courts directed that they were no longer necessary, and three control orders were revoked because the previous Government felt they were unable to make the disclosures ordered by the court. All those individuals were then freed from their controls.

Kevan Jones: Does what the right hon. Lady has just described not show that the judicial oversight of control orders was actually working?

Theresa May: I have to say that that is an ingenious argument to make in support of the hon. Gentleman’s Front Benchers, but what it shows is that the courts were giving a very clear message about aspects of control orders. What we needed was a regime that was legally viable and would command the confidence of the police and security services, and TPIMs have been consistently endorsed by the courts, two successive independent reviewers of counter-terrorism legislation, the police and the Security Service. They provide some of the strongest restrictions available in the democratic world
	and some of the strongest possible protections that our courts will allow. We now have a strong and sustainable legal framework to handle terrorist suspects whom we can neither prosecute nor deport.

Hazel Blears: I am beginning to have a concern that, as a result of the outcry because people have absconded from the TPIMs regime, the Government will in future be reluctant to use the TPIMs powers. Will the Home Secretary confirm that if there are people who pose a serious security risk to this country, the Government will continue to use the TPIMs powers, although they are considerably weakened in my view, to try to protect the people of this country?

Theresa May: The TPIMs remain on the statute book. They remain there as an option; they are an option for the Security Service and the police to look at in relation to any individual and to bring forward to the Secretary of State for determination and then through the court process, which the right hon. Lady knows is in place.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Some of us come from the “lock ’em up and throw away the key” brigade on a lot of these matters, but will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to spell out the additional measures, which she has referred to, that will convince us that what will be put in place will be stronger, better and give us more security?

Theresa May: If the hon. Gentleman has a little patience, I shall refer to some of the other measures we have taken a little later on in my speech, but first I want to address the issue of funding.
	As part of the TPIMs package, we provided additional funding to the Security Service and the police of tens of millions of pounds a year to help keep the public safe. For obvious reasons, I cannot go into detail on how that money was spent, but I can assure the House that it has significantly strengthened the police and the Security Service’s surveillance and counter-terrorism capabilities.
	We followed that up by increasing spending on the security and intelligence agencies, most recently also protecting counter-terrorism policing budgets in the 2015-16 spending round. The police and Security Service made it clear that the move from control orders to TPIMs, combined with the additional funding for counter-terrorism, would not substantially increase overall risk. In fact, I can tell the House that the police and Security Service believe that TPIMs have been effective in disrupting the individuals subject to TPIMs and their networks.

Graham Jones: Did the Home Office not fail to confiscate Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed’s passport when he was subject to a TPIM? Surely that is not a secure system.

Theresa May: As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I made clear to the House following the statement I made on that individual, when that individual returned to the United Kingdom he did so on a document that was not a passport, and therefore the passport was not available to be taken.
	Let me deal with the specific points raised by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). Anyone listening to her would sometimes think that the control order regime would have solved
	every terrorist plot, but as well as the eight people released when the courts revoked their orders, another seven people absconded during the six years that control orders existed, and only one of those seven was ever found again, so people did abscond on control orders.

Jack Straw: rose—

Theresa May: I may be about to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I will let him intervene.

Jack Straw: One of the central differences between control orders and TPIMs that the right hon. Lady has not mentioned so far is the issue of relocation. Nobody absconded from relocation, and she cannot claim that she abandoned relocation because of orders from the courts, because the courts generally were supportive of relocation.

Theresa May: I was about to answer the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. When I refer to the seven absconds that took place under control orders, the answer that I always get from Opposition Members is about this issue of relocation. What neither he in his intervention, nor the right hon. Lady in her speech tell us is that forced relocation was struck down by the courts in four control order cases, including those of two individuals who were subsequently placed on TPIMs. The right hon. Lady also does not say that several control order subjects breached their control orders even while they were relocated, so the idea that relocation would prevent orders being breached is simply not correct. When the Metropolitan Police Commissioner was asked whether the removal of the option for relocation would have had any bearing on the case of Ibrahim Magag, in particular, he answered:
	“we do not think so”.

Kevan Jones: What about the point made by David Anderson in his latest review? He says:
	“The possibility of relocation has now been removed. That step was not required by the courts …which had indeed shown themselves generally supportive of relocation as a deterrent”
	to terrorism.

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, because David Anderson has consistently said:
	“The only sure way to prevent absconding is to lock people in a high security prison.”
	As I said at the beginning of my speech, that option, without charge or prosecution, has already been struck down by the highest courts in the land.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary has not answered the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). He specifically said that the independent reviewer has said:
	“The possibility of relocation has now been removed. That step was not required by the courts …which had indeed shown themselves generally supportive of relocation as a deterrent”
	to terrorism-related activity. The Home Secretary has just claimed that the Government had to get rid of relocation because it kept getting struck down by the courts, but the independent reviewer has said the complete
	opposite. He has said that the courts supported the principle of relocation. Will she now make clear her view: does she simply think the independent reviewer is wrong or will she now withdraw her previous comments?

Theresa May: I will repeat precisely what I said a few minutes ago, which is that what the right hon. Lady never tells this House is that forced relocation was struck down by the courts in four control order cases. The point is that she and others speak about relocation in this House as if it was never queried, but it was; in four cases it was struck down.

Lyn Brown: Will the Home Secretary clarify whether the principle was objected to by the courts?

Theresa May: What I have made clear is that the courts struck down forced relocation in a number of cases. That is a fact that the shadow Front-Bench team never put before this House.
	The Opposition’s motion also raises a number of other issues, as the right hon. Lady did in her speech, so let me start by addressing the issue of the two-year time limit. Again, the Opposition do not tell us the whole story. If the police or Security Service observe any of those individuals engaging in new terrorism-related activity, they can apply to have a new TPIM placed on that subject. That is something that is entirely open to them. Besides, people coming off restrictions is nothing new. Convicted prisoners serve their sentences and are released every day. Opposition Members can say what they like, but that also includes people convicted under the Terrorism Acts.

Hazel Blears: It would help the House enormously if the Secretary of State could confirm now whether she is prepared to look at the recommendation from David Anderson that at the end of a TPIM there be some power similar to licensed conditions when people are released from prison, so that at least there is some mechanism for making these people engage with the authorities, whether it is the National Offender Management Service or the probation service. There needs to be some vestige of control over those people’s activities.

Theresa May: I will come on to those points about individuals in general and individuals who are coming off TPIMs. As I have said, if individuals have been conducting new terrorism-related activity, it is perfectly possible for a new TPIM to be established and for a request to be made for that TPIM to be applied to those individuals.
	The Opposition can say what they like about the issue of the two-year time limit, but I suggest that the fact that people are released having been convicted under the Terrorism Acts suggests that there are people released on to our streets who have been involved in acts of terrorism.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Having been in her position, I remember what it is like trying to defend a very weak position. To compare people who are released from prison under terrorism legislation with people whose TPIM comes to an end is no comparison at all. Will she acknowledge
	that if someone is released from prison after serving a lengthy sentence for terrorism offences, they will be on licence and they are eligible to be recalled to prison straight away without any further court proceedings?

Hon. Members: They were convicted.

Theresa May: As my hon. Friends are saying from a sedentary position, there is a basic difference between the individuals: one set of individuals has been prosecuted, convicted and put in prison. The suggestion that somebody who has at some stage been involved in terrorism activity is never allowed to be released on to the streets is not correct, yet that is the impression that the Opposition sometimes give. In their comments on control orders, they fail to concentrate on the fact that 43 people who were on control orders came off their restrictions. That may have been because the orders were allowed to expire or they were revoked or quashed by the courts, or people may have absconded. As I have said, even before TPIMs were introduced, the courts would simply not allow people to be parked permanently on control orders. When the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was asked whether he had concerns about time limits, he said, “I do not think so.”

Pete Wishart: It has come to something when the Tories are having to lecture Labour on civil liberties. Why does the right hon. Lady not just test the evidence? Why does she not make sure that those who are on TPIM orders are taken to the courts so that the courts can decide? Surely that is what we do in a democratic society.

Theresa May: We take individuals to court where it is possible and where there is evidence on individuals to prosecute them for crimes under the Terrorism Acts. The court is then able to make those decisions. The issue is what does society do with the individuals we are not able to deport or to prosecute. The Government took the decision at an early stage that we introduce TPIMs and give them a two-year time limit. That matter was debated and discussed in this House.

Thomas Docherty: rose—

Ian Paisley Jnr: rose—

Theresa May: I will give way to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) first and then the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley).

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), can she confirm on how many occasions the First Minister of Scotland or Scottish Ministers have lobbied her, expressing concerns about this or any future arrangements?

Theresa May: I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that these matters of security are reserved matters for us here in Westminster. I have not looked at the debate on these issues in Hansard, but I would not be surprised if the hon. Gentlemen from Scotland or indeed Northern Ireland took part.
	I will now make some progress. On the specific cases, the police and Security Service have now been working for some time to put in place tailored plans to manage each individual once their TPIM restrictions are removed. Those plans, which are similar to those put in place for the release of prisoners who have served their sentences, are kept under constant review, and they are similar to the plans the police and Security Service use every day to manage other suspects who are not subject to restrictions.
	I completely reject the suggestion that the Opposition are putting about that the police and Security Service have not carried out proper risk assessments of these individuals. They have done so because that is their job, and they have put in place specific, tailored plans to deal with each individual.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Home Secretary spell out very clearly that this will not be like the licence system? When the Labour party was in government, hundreds upon hundreds of licensed prisoners—including mass murderers—were released from our jails in Northern Ireland. Those people were at large to commit crime and their licences were only revoked after they had committed another crime. That was not good management. Will she assure us that the management system that will be put in place will not be like the licence system?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman brings considerable experience of this matter to the House. As I said, the police and Security Service have been putting plans in place for those individuals who will come off TPIMs, and they are similar to the plans they use every day to manage other suspects who are not subject to restrictions.

Kevan Jones: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: I am going to make some progress as I have taken quite a few interventions.
	We continue to believe that the best place for a terrorist is behind bars. As I have said, if the police and Security Service find any individual engaging in new terrorism-related activity, the police will seek to have them prosecuted. If that is not possible, it is open to the police and Security Service to recommend that a new TPIM notice should be imposed.
	In response to an earlier intervention from the hon. Member for North Antrim, I said that I would talk about the new powers that we have introduced. We have not just given extra money to the police and Security Service; we have strengthened their powers. In April last year, in a written statement to the House, I explained how we would use the royal prerogative to remove passports from British nationals who we believe want to travel abroad to take part in extremist activity, terrorist training or other fighting. That has significantly enhanced the security services’ powers in this area and the prerogative has already been used on several occasions, helping to disrupt terrorist suspects who want to travel abroad to gain skills or contacts that they could use to plot attacks in this country.

Yvette Cooper: In the cases of several of the six people expected to be released from TPIMs this month, the concerns raised were that they would travel abroad to be involved in terrorist activity. Can the Home Secretary
	tell us whether that power has been used to remove the passports of any of those who are coming off TPIMs this month?

Theresa May: I will not go into operational detail, but what I will say to the right hon. Lady is that it is open to the Security Service and police to make a request for the royal prerogative to be exercised in those cases where they think it is appropriate to do so.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary answered this question when she was asked about Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, and specifically about his passport—she initially gave an incorrect answer to the Home Affairs Committee, which she then corrected. If she was prepared to answer a question about his passport, why is she refusing to answer legitimate questions about the attitude towards the passports of these suspects?

Theresa May: I should have thought that the right hon. Lady would have been able to distinguish between the information given to this House about the passport of Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed and the question of whether the royal prerogative has been exercised.
	Given the conflict in Syria, powers to disrupt terrorist travel are now particularly vital. The UK already has some of the most robust and effective legislation in the world to deal with suspected terrorists and those suspected of engaging in terrorist-related activity, both in the UK and abroad. We will not hesitate to use every power at our disposal. If a terrorist suspect is a dual national, I will consider deprivation of their British citizenship, and the Government are considering strengthening our legal powers in that area. If a suspect is a foreign national, the Government can exclude them from the UK. This Government have excluded more foreign hate preachers than ever before.
	We will further increase our efforts to remove foreign nationals from this country where they threaten our national security. After this Government finally secured the deportation of Abu Qatada—who was, of course, one of the original Belmarsh detainees—we introduced the Immigration Bill to make it easier for us to get foreign terrorist suspects out of our country. The Opposition failed to vote for that Bill on Second Reading.
	As well as tackling foreign terrorist suspects, we are doing more to stop home- grown extremism. This summer, we saw events that shocked the nation, with the horrific killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich and the murder of Mohammed Saleem in Birmingham. Last month the Prime Minister announced new measures to tackle extremism, with the outcome of the extremism taskforce, which was established in the wake of those tragic events. That built on the revised Prevent strategy, which we extended to cover all forms of extremism, including non-violent extremism. We have already had success in restricting extremist speakers. Many events with extremist speakers have been referred to the police, some have been disrupted, and in other cases, venues have been persuaded not to host speakers with extreme views.

Alan Johnson: That does not answer the central point. In January 2011, when introducing TPIMs, the Home Secretary said:
	“there is likely to be a small number of people who pose a real threat to our security, but who cannot currently be successfully
	prosecuted or deported...no responsible Government could allow those individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities.”—[ Official Report , 26 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 307-8.]
	In relation to the five or six people who will be released, what assurance can she give to Parliament that they will not now go about their terrorist activity?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there are some people whom it is not possible to deport or prosecute. That is the sentence I opened my speech with. That is precisely why we have the TPIM measures as possibilities to be used for certain individuals.
	In addition to the other measures I have spoken about, more than 21,000 items of illegal terrorist content have been taken down from the internet. As I have mentioned, we have excluded more preachers of hate from this country than ever before. While some Labour politicians positively welcomed the likes of Yusuf al-Qaradawi to London, under this Government foreign hate preachers are not welcome here.
	We are stopping terrorist suspects travelling abroad, we are depriving them of the option of coming back, we are deporting foreign terrorist suspects and we are doing more to tackle home-grown radicalisation.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary has not answered the basic question about whether these six men still pose a risk. Let me ask her about one of them, the man known as CD. She has told us plenty about him before and has said plenty to the courts. She told us plenty about Magag and Mohamed. Why does she not simply tell us now whether she believes that CD still poses a risk that he will pursue terrorist-related activity—yes or no?

Theresa May: I have made it clear to the right hon. Lady and to the House that of those individuals who are coming off their TPIMs, the police and the Security Service have made a proper risk assessment and have put in place measures to ensure that they are dealing with those individuals in the way that they believe is appropriate. Those are decisions that they take.

Tom Harris: I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s patience. I am sorry to try it, but I really do not think that she has answered the question from my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State. She was asked whether she believes that CD currently represents a threat. She responded by saying that an assessment was carried out. That is not the answer. Does she believe that CD poses a threat to the public safety of this country?

Theresa May: I recognise that quite a few hon. Members, possibly including the hon. Gentleman, want to speak in the debate and time is pressing. For every individual who comes off a TPIM, an assessment is made of the risk that they pose. That assessment is properly made by the police and Security Service, and that is a decision that it is right for them to make. They put into place the appropriate measures that they believe are right in order to deal with those individuals, as they do—as I have said—with other suspects, other people who are of concern, people who have not been on TPIMs or control orders.
	The other issue is ensuring that we have successful prosecutions. There have been some notable recent successes. In the year to 30 June 2013, 40 individuals were convicted for terrorism-related offences, under both the Terrorism Acts and non-terrorism legislation, and a further 15 defendants were awaiting trial on 30 June 2013.
	Those convicted include Irfan Naseer, Irfan Khalid and Ashik Ali, from the Birmingham area, who were convicted in February 2013 of offences including: travelling to Pakistan for training in terrorism; collecting money for terrorism; assisting others to travel to Pakistan for training in terrorism; recruiting others for terrorism; and planning a bombing campaign, which was assessed to be potentially on a scale greater than the 2005 London bombings. Naseer was sentenced to life imprisonment for each count and will serve a minimum term of 18 years. Irfan Khalid received a sentence of 23 years. Ashik Ali received a sentence of 20 years.
	On 30 April 2013 six men, also from Birmingham, pleaded guilty, following a police investigation, to preparing acts of terrorism. They had intended to attack an English Defence League rally in Dewsbury using a home-made improvised explosive device and various other weapons. Three of the men were sentenced to 19 years and six months, and the other three were sentenced to 18 years and nine months.
	We should not forget that we must also tackle the threat from far-right extremism. Last year the police arrested Pavlo Lapshyn, who pleaded guilty to the murder of Mohammed Saleem in April 2013 and IED attacks on three mosques in the west midlands. He received a life sentence with a recommended minimum tariff of 40 years. Unlike the Labour party, which was content for convicted terrorists to be released halfway through their sentence, this Government have proposed that those convicted of serious terrorism offences should no longer be automatically released at the halfway point of their sentence without an assessment of their suitability for release.
	To keep us all safe, our police and security services do exceptional and often dangerous work every day. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to their skill, courage and dedication. TPIMs are just one weapon in the considerable armoury of powers at their disposal. But the Government have shown that we are committed to doing all we can to support the police and Security Service in tackling the threats we face. That is why we have enhanced our powers to disrupt terrorist travel, we will help deport foreign terrorist suspects, and we have given the police and the Security Service tens of millions of pounds in extra funding each year. The police and the Security Service do a tremendous job in keeping our country safe. Rather than questioning their work, we should be supporting them with the powers and resources they need. That is why the Opposition’s motion deserves to fail.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. In order to try to accommodate the number of Members who wish to contribute to the debate, I am afraid that I will have to impose, with immediate effect, a seven-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Jack Straw: Achieving a balance between the liberty and freedom of citizens on the one hand, and the safety and security of the same citizens on the other hand, is a fundamental duty of this House and a fundamental responsibility of any Home Secretary. Since it is not possible to exercise more abstract freedoms and liberties without the freedom to live one’s life in peace and security, identifying where that balance lies will always be difficult and must take account of the particular circumstances of the age in which we live.
	The Home Secretary opened her remarks—we should all be grateful for her generosity in giving way—by referring to the fact that all these orders were in the shadow of the attacks of 11 September 2001. Given that the scale of the terrorism and its threat had not before been experienced here, or anywhere else around the world, changes were made that then had to be altered in the light of experience.
	I am not suggesting for one second that every change the Labour Government initiated or proposed was exactly right, because it was not. We had to learn from experience. I do not think that anyone who has held the office of Home Secretary—I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) in his place—would suggest that they got everything right.
	However, I believe that by the end of our period in government, including the reforms introduced in 2007, the regime of control orders was broadly operating better than any alternative for dealing with the very small minority of dangerous people who, for reasons with which the House is fully familiar, could not in practice be prosecuted for the offences which it was understood in other circumstances they had committed or were likely to commit. Some would say, “We should just leave these matters to the courts.” At least the main parties are agreed that some people are so dangerous—as confirmed by information sufficiently reliable for the courts, albeit in closed proceedings—that they cannot just be left at large. No Government and no Home Secretary would survive if we washed our hands of the risks before us and then an aeroplane was blown up with hundreds of UK citizens on it, or bombs were let off. Control orders, imperfect though they are, and although they should be used only in extreme circumstances, were introduced to deal with those threats.
	I never understood, and we have had no reliable explanation today, why on earth the Home Secretary decided, with no explanation whatsoever, to change control orders, which were working, to a weaker system of which there are two fundamentally different features: first, an arbitrary time limit, which she did not need to impose; and secondly, the removal of the relocation provisions, which was not required by the courts. She referred to four cases, I think, where she said that the courts said that they were not appropriate, as opposed to being struck down, because that phrase is about striking down legislation. The courts had decided, quite rightly, in the instant case, that they were not going to approve that part of the control order. That is what the courts are there for. They were not striking down relocations; they were merely saying “Parliament asked us to substitute our judgment for that of the Home Secretary. That is precisely what we have done. We do not think this is justified in these circumstances.” By the end of this process,
	no individual for whom a relocation order had been confirmed then absconded, whereas the Home Secretary has been faced with the reality that the system she introduced is very much weaker.

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw on his experience as Home Secretary and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). Perhaps the current Home Secretary should have drawn on the experience of Lord Howard, who was Home Secretary in the previous Tory Administration and who said:
	“If you ask me my personal view…I would have preferred the relocation provisions to have remained.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 17, Q53.]

Jack Straw: I am sorry that the Home Secretary did not say, as I think anybody who has held that office would say, “Okay, we’ve made these changes but we’re willing for them to be reviewed on a cross-party basis”, which is the gravamen of what is proposed in our motion.
	The Home Secretary was asked, I do not know how many times, whether she regarded those whose TPIMs are about to end as still posing a significant risk to the public. In other words, we seek her judgment as to whether, if there were no time limit, she would be seeking to maintain those TPIMs. However, answer came there none. What she did say, which I greatly regret—I do not think it fits the office—was, “The police and the intelligence agencies have judged that they posed no substantially increased risk.” That is damning the current regime with faint praise. Of course she has to take advice from the police and the security agencies, but she knows very well that she cannot subcontract the responsibilities of this House and the statutory responsibility of the Home Secretary to unnamed police and intelligence agents; she has to make the judgment herself. The legislation does not say that the decision about whether to apply for a TPIM—as, before, with the decision about whether to apply for a control order—should be delegated to a panel of the police or the intelligence services. It is a judgment for her.
	We needed to know, not least so that we could understand the Home Secretary’s own confidence in the measures that she has recommended to the House, whether she thought that the individuals in question continued to pose a risk. She did not answer that question. That is one of a great many reasons why I believe that she herself has little confidence in the process that she has brought into legislation and why we should strongly support the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary.

Edward Leigh: I broadly support what the Home Secretary is trying to achieve on TPIMs. As far as the public outside will be concerned, the debate has been rather skewed, because for most of it a Conservative Home Secretary has been attacked by the Labour party on a civil liberties issue. The House should not indulge in party political attacks but should reflect what our constituents want, which is to feel that they are safe. They want our Home Secretary to do whatever is necessary for that.
	Before I deal with the issue of whether TPIMs or control orders are right, I point out that as far as most Back Benchers and most members of the public are concerned, TPIMs are simply control orders-lite. There is not a huge difference between them. I will deal with the issue of relocation in a moment, but first I wish to support both the Labour Government and the current Conservative Government in having such orders at all, because they are under attack from the civil liberties lobby. If there is a choice for me, as a father, between my daughters being blown up on a London tube, or our constituents being attacked by people who detest everything we stand for and all our liberal values, and there being some minor infringement of those people’s civil liberties, I know what choice I will make. I suspect that 90% of the population would make the same choice.
	It is said that such orders are a gross infringement of civil liberties. I am on record as being an advocate of our jury system, I have never wanted to give the police extra powers and I recognise all the ancient arguments for our civil liberties. However, given the danger that some people pose and the views that they hold, what is the gross infringement on their civil liberties that we are talking about? Overnight residence measures; electronic tagging; restrictions on communication or association; exclusion from particular places; overseas travel bans; restrictions on bank accounts; restrictions on the transfer of property; limitations on the possession and use of electronic communication devices; work or studies measures that require permission to be obtained for specific activities or notice to be given prior to any work or studies being carried out; measures requiring regular reporting to a police station; and measures requiring the individual to allow himself to be photographed. Are those grotesque violations of those people’s civil liberties? No.

Julian Huppert: Yes.

Edward Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is living in a dream world. Does he appreciate what these people are trying to do? Does he understand the level of danger they pose?

Mark Reckless: Surely what is important is that those individuals are being deprived of those liberties without due process, a trial and conviction, on the basis solely of suspicion, albeit in many cases potentially justified suspicion.

Edward Leigh: We know that there is some evidence, such as intercept evidence, that is difficult for the Home Secretary to bring to trial. Surely we must have some faith in our Home Secretary. Surely we respect her and the instruments of justice as having the public interest at heart. They are in no way inclined to restrict anybody’s civil liberties unless there is good reason.

Julian Huppert: Would the hon. Gentleman like to explain how his list is not a major problem to somebody like Cerie Bullivant? He was on a control order that was scrapped by the courts because there was simply no evidence, and he was found not guilty when there was a criminal trial. How would the hon. Gentleman explain to him that the two years he spent under that control order was not an infringement of his basic rights?

Edward Leigh: This is not actually the moment; the Government have moved on from control orders, but that is another issue. I would say that if there has been a trial and that person has been found not guilty, fair enough. There may, however, be reasonable suspicion that somebody poses a real danger to the public. This whole debate has been skewed because the Labour party has attacked the Government from the right, but I am more interested in what the public think. When the public look at the appalling outrages that have taken place, and when they consider the plots to blow up hundreds of innocent people for no reason at all, I do not think that most of them think that the sorts of measures that the Labour Government brought in, and that our Government are enforcing, are such a dramatic infringement on our traditional way of life. In that sense I support the former Labour Government; I think they had to act as they wanted, although we know there was a problem with the courts.
	It does not seem to me that TPIMs are so very different from what we had before. They are instigated by the Home Secretary with the permission of the High Court, and they are granted on the basis of a reasonable belief in the subject’s involvement in terrorism—that all sounds quite sensible. That is, I agree, a higher threshold than the one for control orders, which required “reasonable suspicion”, but as far as the public are concerned, is there a great deal of difference between the “reasonable suspicion” that was required under the former Labour Government, or a reasonable belief in the subject’s involvement in terrorism? I do not think so; that is not a great difference between control orders and TPIMs. The Home Office memorandum on the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 states that the Home Secretary must reasonably—again, “reasonably”, and all this is subject to judicial review—consider
	“that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public”.
	Let us always focus on members of the public. That is what we are here for, not to debate party political issues. I wish those on our two Front Benches could get together on this issue; it is a matter of national security.

Yvette Cooper: indicated assent.

Edward Leigh: I am sure that on a Privy Counsellor basis, the Home Secretary would be happy to brief the right hon. Lady. I am speaking as a Back Bencher, but it seems that when the public are concerned, and when there are people who hold such dangerous views, it is not unreasonable for us as members of the public to ask our two parties of state to work together on this.
	The memorandum says that the Home Secretary must reasonably consider
	“that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism,”
	and with preventing or restricting the individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity,
	“for TPIMs to be imposed on an individual.”
	That is not unreasonable.
	There are two points to consider and I understand the attack from the Labour party. I also understand that the High Court had a problem with relocation, but I would have thought we could find a way through that.
	If relocation was absolutely necessary from the point of view of protecting the public, I do not think it unreasonable —I have been listening to the shadow Home Secretary—for there to be some requirement for relocation.

Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Edward Leigh: I hope my hon. Friend does not mind, but I must finish in a few seconds. I will end with this point, although I would like to be able to give way.
	We have a right to know that these six people are now safe to be released on the streets. That is a reasonable question. The Home Secretary’s reasonable point of view is that there must be some new evidence that they continue to be a threat to the public, and we cannot keep someone under a control order for ever on the basis of information that is two years old. I think that is her point of view, and that is how TPIMs differ from control orders. From a rational and objective point of view, that is not an unreasonable stance.
	When the Minister sums up the debate, without going into operational details, I would like him to seek, as best he can, to reassure the House that those people have behaved themselves over the past two years, that there is no evidence of new involvement in terrorism, and that in his view, they will not be a threat to society. That would be entirely proper for the Minister to do. Surely all the public want is reassurance that they and their children are safe, and it is the job of us in this Parliament to ensure that those children are safe.

Alan Johnson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who spoke for the public. It was the kind of speech that should have been made by someone on the Treasury Bench.
	To join in the debate with the national union of current and former Home Secretaries, it is important to stress that nobody wants control orders or TPIMs. In our free society, no one has ever issued a control order without a heavy heart—and the current Home Secretary issued control orders before the change.
	The best solution would be to have the ability to use intercepts as evidence. There is full agreement in the House on that, but Sir John Chilcot’s cross-party Privy Council review could find no practical way of doing it. I briefed the current Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, and we accepted that there was no way forward. Added to that, an authoritative review by senior counsel found that using intercept evidence would not have made a difference in nine cases they examined.
	We are therefore stuck in a dilemma. The hon. Member for Gainsborough was right that there is little difference between TPIMs and control orders, apart from the two main measures we are debating. Shami Chakrabarti has described TPIMs as control orders-lite—Shami’s problem is with “control orders”; my problem is with “lite”. She is right in a way. The Home Secretary’s review came to the same conclusion as the previous Government—I was confident that it would. The argument is not about sending people through the courts. There is a small number of people whom we can neither deport nor send through the courts, so we must have a process.
	We use control orders or TPIMs with a heavy heart, but there is no alternative. I have the affliction of seeing the other side of the argument, which affects all hon. Members. I can see the civil rights argument for getting rid of control orders, but I cannot see the argument for keeping TPIMs, which apply to a small number of dangerous people who could be free on our streets wreaking havoc and causing harm, and taking away relocation and the ability to renew.
	It is important to stress that the people subjected to TPIMs have not simply looked at a few unsavoury websites or made a couple of inflammatory speeches—an awful lot of people would be on TPIMs if they were used in those circumstances. TPIMs, like control orders before them, are issued on the basis not of an extravagant expression of support for terrorism, but of evidence of an intention to carry out threats. As the Government’s independent reviewer puts it, the suspects are at
	“the highest end of seriousness”.
	There is complete consensus on that among those on the two Front Benches. When control orders were introduced in 2005, it soon became apparent that, if those subjected to them continued to live within that sphere of influence, making it easier for them to fraternise with their old associates, the order was less effective and the ability to abscond was enhanced.

Julian Lewis: I am following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument closely. Although I intend to vote with the Government, I find common ground with him on the question of relocation in one respect. Does he agree that, if terrorists move away from the more spectacular type of attack to the type that involves just a small number of them, and if people are not physically located away from one another, it makes things much harder? There will be nothing to intercept if people plan low-level attacks by meeting face to face.

Alan Johnson: Relocation does not have to be part of an order—it would be within the Home Secretary’s box of tools. There would be no argument whatsoever if there was an agreement that that might be counterproductive. I do not think we are over those kinds of threats yet—I take issue with that—but I take the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s point.
	It would be a different matter if relocation was objected to by the courts, but that is not the case. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) quoted David Anderson and others. It would be a different matter if the removal of relocation was required by the Government’s independent advisers, but David Anderson thought we were going backwards on protecting the public. That is what he said in his first review, in so many words. Those on the Liberal Democrat Benches do not like to listen to Lord Carlile, and neither would I if I was in their position, but David Anderson’s predecessor said:
	“On the evidence available, I am persuaded firmly—I choose my words carefully—to the view that it would be negligent to remove relocation from the main provisions.”
	Both Governments’ reviewers said the same thing.
	It was me who placed the control order on Ibrahim Magag, who was relocated away from London. Why was he relocated away from London? Because the ruling of Lord Justice Collins was that
	“it is too dangerous to permit him to be in London even for a short period.”
	That was the courts, not me. Why on earth did the current Home Secretary allow him back into London, enabling him to hail a taxi and disappear? In times past, media pressure would have meant a taxi being ordered for the Home Secretary.

Richard Fuller: As the right hon. Gentleman is making such a substantial point on relocation, and as he is experienced in the use of control orders, can he advise the House which other European Union countries have relocation as part of their protections against terrorism suspects, and, if it is not used in other EU countries, why does he think it is particularly apropos in the United Kingdom?

Alan Johnson: We could have a seminar for hours on other European countries and their much better abilities to detain, and to detain for many years, as we have seen with suspects in France. The hon. Gentleman’s Government reviewed this and decided that they needed an element that they could call a control order. The “T” in TPIMs did not stand for temporary; it stood for terrorism. Having concluded that, why would relocation be removed? That is a mystery to me. The Home Secretary herself placed the control order on Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, before control orders were changed to TPIMs. Humiliatingly, he has absconded.
	The two-year limit is completely arbitrary—that is the mystery. It is not as if a terrorist who has served a sentence is about to be released after a period in prison. TPIMs relate to people who, we had cause to believe, posed a danger. The question we have asked consistently of the Home Secretary is why, after this arbitrary period, do they suddenly not pose a threat?
	I am very familiar with the activities of three of the people covered by TPIMs. Incidentally, one of them is known as DD. I am not sure if that is a reference to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who may well have been put under one of these orders by his own Front Bench. Those three people do not have to be engaged in any fresh activity for me to be extremely worried about their release. Indeed, it is a curious point that TPIMs come to an end if people subject to them are not engaged in any fresh terrorist activity. That suggests that TPIMs are so weak that people on them could be gaily getting involved in fresh terrorist activity. However, it is not the fresh terrorist activity I am worried about, but the original reasons for the order.
	Let us go back for a moment to the Home Secretary’s words, which we have heard before. She said that there are
	“a small number of people who pose a real threat to our security”,
	and that
	“no responsible Government could allow these individuals to go”—[Official Report, 26 January 2011; Vol. 522, c. 307-8.]
	back on the streets. The motion is genuinely trying to reach a consensus. This matter is too serious for us to score political points. Parliament is concerned that people previously thought too dangerous for our streets will now be released. We need to find a solution, and I urge the Treasury Bench and Government Members, if not to support our motion, which might be too much for them, at least to find a similar way to reach a consensus on this issue.

Robert Buckland: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), and I particularly take on board his last exhortation. He is absolutely right: when it comes to national security, party politics should recede into the background and the common interest of Members of Parliament, whether acting as legislators or residents—or as parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) reminded us—should guide us in our deliberations.
	The TPIMs debate is finely balanced. I took part in the Bill Committee on what is now the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, and I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which this week will publish its post-legislative report on the Act’s implementation. While it would be wrong of me to pre-empt its findings, personally, I can offer some opinions on where the balance needs to be struck. I am sure that the first principle that needs to be emphasised is accepted by most, if not all, Members. The fundamental basis from which we all start must be the rule that individual freedom should be curtailed only where there are reasonable grounds for arrest or sufficient evidence to charge a suspect, or where custody is the only appropriate sentence after a finding of guilt. Any departure from that rule has to be exercised sparingly and within the narrowest parameters, and cannot involve indefinite or permanent deprivation of liberty. Balanced against that important principle has to be the duty of the state and its agents to safeguard us in our daily lives, which is why the activities of our security and intelligence services deserve our strong support and praise.

Bob Stewart: I have seen people locked up for a long time. When they come out, their resentment and aggression can grow, and what worries me is our assumption that the aggression and resentment of these six people, after two years on TPIMs, will have lessened. I am worried about them just being released.

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend’s point allows me to make two observations. First, we have to be careful, in setting the parameters of any orders we impose, not to heighten the sense of grievance; and secondly and most importantly, the Government have to take other measures, in terms of the resources given to the security and intelligence services, the work done by Prevent and the counter-terrorism work done day in, day out to supplement the TPIMs regime. Is there not a danger that in dwelling on the detail of TPIMs, we ignore the bigger picture and the Government’s welcome injection of extra resources into this area of activity?
	The constant vigilance of our security services is not only underpinned by statute, but, as the Home Secretary said, exercised by use of the royal prerogative, which is still the residual source of authority for Government activity in this area and which I know is used daily. The motion calls on the Government to share with the Intelligence and Security Committee the full assessment of the threat or otherwise posed by the six individuals who are to exit the TPIMs regime imminently, and then subject it to a cross-party review. However well intentioned that might be, to link such a process with individual cases is misconceived, because it risks bringing a Committee of Parliament into the field of operations. It is the job
	of parliamentary Committees to consider the strategy and the legal structure; it is not their job to consider operational matters, and I can see any cross-party review falling foul of that problem.

Gerry Sutcliffe: What does the hon. Gentleman see as the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee? It looks at lots of issues that are reported to it about the threats the country faces, which ordinary Members of Parliament cannot see.

Robert Buckland: I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about the role of that Committee and its structure, which perhaps allows it to go into more intimate detail than debates on the Floor of the House would allow. However, if members of that Committee were to intervene—I am sure some of them will take part in the debate later—I think they would hesitate before allowing the ambit of the Committee to include looking at individual operational matters. That really is not the role, as I see it, of a Committee of Parliament such as the Intelligence and Security Committee.
	TPIMs are already subject to a number of reviews. We have heard a lot about the independent reviewer, David Anderson, QC, and his annual reports, which give a helpful and comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness or otherwise of TPIMs. There are also, of course, quarterly reports to Parliament made by the Home Secretary, and I have already mentioned the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As I understand it, the Government intend to carry out a broader review of counter-terrorism measures, which will no doubt include the operation of TPIMs. For all those reasons, it seems unnecessary to call for a cross-party review at this stage.
	Let me deal with some of the points that have sparked debate this evening, the first being the question of absconsion. The very nature of such orders means that the risk of absconsion will always be present, whatever the conditions may be. The only way to prevent absconsion is to lock people up, and doing so without trial falls foul of fundamental principles that we should all share as democrats and lovers of liberty. There is an argument I have heard that the risk of absconsion would be higher if TPIM subjects remained in their local communities, but to my way of thinking it is equally arguable either way. It is equally arguable that a person placed in another part of the country, isolated and therefore disengaged from their community, would want to abscond as well.
	The truth is that there is no clear evidence to support the contention that the lack of relocation powers in TPIMs has led to more absconsions. When it comes to the reasons for those absconsions, Ministers must satisfy themselves that the secret services and the police are taking every step possible to reduce the risk posed to the rest of us by such people and that suitable resources are available to deal with the situation. That is why the increase in resources by the Government is so important.
	As an investigative measure, TPIMs are a bit of a misnomer in my view. I agree with the view of David Anderson that the investigatory part of TPIMs has not been effective. There is no evidence to suggest that they have in any way led to further prosecutions. What they are is a preventive measure. That was the view of the reviewer and it is certainly my view. I agree with him that TPIMs are likely to have prevented terrorist activity
	and, most importantly, they will have allowed resources to be released from deployment on the former control order regime, to deal with other pressing national security targets. Those are not my words; they are the words of the David Anderson in his last review, and I agree.
	We have heard about exit strategies. It would be wrong to explore individual cases, but—to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—some information about the work being done in the wider counter-terrorism context would be welcome, whether it be general information about the Prevent strategy or information about the work of the new extremism taskforce, which was set up in the wake of the appalling Woolwich murder.
	Much has been made of time limits, yet an inescapable truth has been avoided by some Opposition speakers: that the indefinite use of control orders would inevitably be subject to legal challenge in the continuing absence of guilt. The argument about time is therefore rather an artificial one and does not advance the merits of the case much further forward.
	In a nutshell, it would be wrong to characterise the introduction of TPIMs as a wholesale diminution of the Government’s resolve to tackle terrorism. To say so does no service to the issues that we are dealing with. Let us return to the approach outlined by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), the former Home Secretary, and rise above petty party politics.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Given that hon. Members have taken their full complement and interventions to boot, the time limit will have to be reduced, with immediate effect, to six minutes.

Keith Vaz: I shall not take that personally. Because the Select Committee met at the same time as the Opposition Front Benchers called for this debate, I was not able to be here for the excellent speech of the shadow Home Secretary or to hear what the Home Secretary had to say. I would like to take up the theme started by the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson)—and, indeed, continued by the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland)—in urging us to look beyond any partisanship in dealing with counter-terrorism issues.
	One feature of our discussions on the Floor of the House—and it applies to Select Committee discussions, too—is the need to understand that we are living in a very dangerous age. That highlights the importance of our trying to build on the consensus that I believe is so important when dealing with counter-terrorism issues. The Select Committee is in the middle of its inquiry into counter-terrorism and is just about to look at a report on TPIMs that will be published next week. I have just read the report. I shall speak very briefly about it because, having just read it, I do not want inadvertently to leak any of it. When Members get the chance to read it, I hope they will find it to be a measured and all-party report. One feature of a Select Committee is that progress is made on an all-party basis.
	I shall flag up three personal concerns. First, what on earth is going to happen to all the people who are on TPIMs and are about to be removed from them? That is an important question, and I hope that the Minister will answer it. I entirely accept what the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said in his intervention on the hon. Member for South Swindon—that if we go to the trouble of making people subject to TPIMs, we need to think about what it will do to those people if the orders are suddenly stopped. One problem with control orders and TPIMs has been the lack of engagement with those who have been subject to them. The Government will have to introduce some kind of measure to replace the one that is about to expire for so many people, so I hope we will be able to ensure not only proper monitoring of those individuals, but appropriate engagement with them.
	We heard evidence in our last session from Cerie Bullivant, a young man who, through association with another individual whose brother was a subject of interest to the security services, was put under a control order. His view was that control orders and TPIMs were exactly the same, but he felt that his life had been transformed by the experience—he became even bitterer because he had been made the subject of such an order. When we are dealing with situations of this kind, we must have these orders, but we must also engage with these people. If we do not, when the order ends, we will be in the same position or an even worse one than when we started.
	Secondly, I am still not clear about what has happened to the two individuals who have escaped from their TPIMs—Ibrahim Magag and Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed. We have had no explanation of what action has been taken. I recall statements being made by Ministers and I know there was a dispute about whether the passports had been retained by the Home Office and the police. Frankly, however, we must have clarity on those points of detail. We know the circumstances of the two individuals who decided to break their orders, but as we come towards the expiry of the orders for the others, we still do not know where these people are. Presumably, we will make no attempts to find them, for what is the point of trying to find people when their orders have expired?
	Finally, I want to say something about foreign fighters. The Committee took evidence from Charles Farr of the Home Office, and we have heard speeches from the head of the security services. These are issues of great importance to the House. What concerns us is not just those who go abroad, but those who come back and then infect other people with their ideology. We need a new counter-terrorism strategy that brings the community on side with us so that they are our eyes and ears. We cannot simply feel that we can prevent this happening; without engagement, we will not be in a position to deal with these dangerous times.

Julian Huppert: It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee.
	A number of principles are at the heart of what we stand for, which is the way of life for which we are fighting. We may not agree on all of them, but one of them, surely, is that people are innocent until proven
	guilty. That is how our legal system starts. No matter how awful the crime of which someone is accused, that person should have his day in court, and should be found guilty or not guilty. However, Labour Members have spoken up against that in the House. They have said that when someone has never been convicted of a crime, the key should be thrown away. When we were discussing the legislation in Committee, the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe)—I am pleased to see that he is in the Chamber now—said
	“there are times when people have to be outside the legal framework.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2011; c. 57.]
	I do not agree with that as a principle for the rule of law in this country.

Bob Stewart: May I point out that it is not just members of the Labour party who are very concerned when people say that they want to do us harm and we cannot obtain evidence against them? I say that we must do something to keep those people out of harm’s way so that they do not harm our people.

Julian Huppert: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, but I hope he would stand up for the rule of law, because it is fought for in many places. People who have committed terrorism offences, of which there is a huge range, should be tried, and if they are convicted they should go to jail for a long time. That is the best place for someone who is dangerous.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman has already conceded that he does not stand by his own point. He supports the TPIM regime, which actually allows someone to be punished for up to two years without being taken to trial and convicted. Why does he support that regime?

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman can have a look at the report of the debate in which I described the method that I should prefer, which is far more focused on prosecution, and note the amendments that I tabled.
	The system that was set up by the last Government involved secret evidence. People did not know what their orders were based on. There was a huge range of punishments, including long curfews—virtual house arrests—and there was this awful internal relocation. People were not even allowed to be in their own homes. All that could continue for an indefinite period. To me, internal exile without trial does not sound like what I would expect this country to be doing; it sounds like the way in which the Soviet Union would behave. In the review that he carried out for the Government, Lord Macdonald said of relocation:
	“This is a form of internal exile, which is utterly inimical to traditional British norms…It is disproportionate and there is no justification for its retention.”
	That view was expressed on the basis of a detailed study.

Richard Fuller: Is it not also the case that whenever that regime is in place, the Government of the day—acting as judge and jury in the case of people who have never been brought to trial—will see the Opposition trample over our civil liberties in order to look tougher than the Home Secretary, and try to scare people about what may happen with no evidence that it will happen at all?

Julian Huppert: That is a good point, although I should say in fairness to the Labour party that it has been authoritarian in office and authoritarian out of office. It has at least been consistent in that regard.
	Control orders simply did not work very effectively. Astonishingly, there were people who went to court, were tried and were found not guilty, and who then had a control order slapped on them although they had just been acquitted. As we have already heard, a huge number of people absconded. Seven people who had apparently been very carefully monitored wandered off. More important, not a single person on a control order or a TPIM has ever been convicted. As Ken Macdonald said:
	“The reality is that controlees become warehoused far beyond the harsh scrutiny of due process and, in consequence, some terrorist activity undoubtedly remains unpunished by the criminal law.”
	The view of our expert, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, was that those measures were not helping to prosecute the people who should be prosecuted if they have committed an offence.
	The Chair of the Select Committee described the case of Cerie Bullivant, who attended our Committee last week. He was found not guilty and the High Court threw out the control order, two years after the Home Office had imposed it. He has said that
	“had I actually been someone dangerous, with criminal intent, the control order wouldn’t have stopped me. Instead all it achieved was to beat me down for two years and change my life forever.”
	He said that it would have been no tougher to go on the run under the relocation powers. He went on:
	“You don’t have a life while you are under a control order. Everything is as it says on the tin. It is claustrophobic and it is controlled. Every day every sort of action you are taking is being monitored. With all of the conditions upon you that you are constantly worried about breaching and trying not to breach, it is like having a sword hanging over your neck.”
	He is a British citizen living in Britain. He had not committed an offence. He was found not guilty and the High Court scrapped the control order. This approach runs against our fundamental sense of British justice, and it does not work. It did not lead to the convictions that I and others would like to see.
	There is a collection of things that affect the way in which people see their role in society. Let us consider the control orders and the huge range of anti-terror powers created by the last Government. It was claimed that they were put in place for our safety, but they were abused time and again. We have heard about the push from Tony Blair to allow people to be detained for 90 days without even telling them what they were accused of. We also remember when the anti-terror powers, apparently put in place for our safety, were used when the 82-year-old Labour party member Walter Wolfgang was thrown out of the party conference for heckling about the Iraq war. That is an example of those rules being abused. When I think of a terrorist, I certainly do not think of an old man shouting at a conference. Labour has still not learnt, however.
	These measures have a financial cost. They have a moral cost to our country when we tell people around the world how they should behave. They also have the cost that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) touched on—namely, the message that they send to people in this country. If we ask many of the
	people in the Muslim community how they perceive their interactions with this country, they will talk about the pressures resulting from such measures. They will talk about the alienation that they suffer as a result of the schedule 7 searches at ports. They will also talk about the effects of stop and search—the Home Secretary is quite rightly reviewing that policy. When we send people a message that they are suspects because of what they believe, they become more separated from our society and less able to engage. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right to highlight the concerns about that, and the effects that all the rhetoric can have.

Alan Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the report from his Government, led by the very man whom he has just been quoting, Lord Macdonald, found no evidence that control orders had the kind of effects that he is talking about?

Julian Huppert: We can argue about that, but the noble Lord made it absolutely clear that relocation had no place in this. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that point. He only has to talk to members of the Muslim community around the country, as I have done on many occasions, to find out how they feel victimised by the rhetoric and the legislation that was passed.
	We have to get national security right, which is why I want to see a far greater focus on prosecution. I have tabled amendments to try to achieve that. We cannot sacrifice our way of life and our longest-held, proudest traditions because we want to look as though we are being tough, which is what we see in the Opposition motion. I am pleased that TPIMs are much lighter than control orders and do not run for an indefinite period, and that we have got rid of the awful idea of internal exile. I want to see more support given to investigations, and I want people to be convicted in court whenever necessary. That is the right approach, and it is the one that this Government are heading towards. I am disappointed that the Opposition are not standing up for the things that this country holds dear.

Gerry Sutcliffe: It was a pleasure to be on the Bill Committee with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). He has been consistent in his arguments about the threat to individual and civil rights, and I understand his point. As the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), has said, none of us wants to be in this position. We all want the rule of law to be in place, but there are circumstances, when we are dealing with a small number of individuals who want to do harm to the country, in which we have to take exceptional measures. That is the reason for control orders and that is why we are in the situation we are in today. It was a political decision: the Government of the day—the coalition—decided they did not want control orders, for the reasons that Members have set out tonight. Instead, they wanted to introduce TPIMs.
	It is good to see that the Minister who took the Bill through the Bill Committee for the coalition Government is in his place. I had the privilege of leading for the Opposition. It was a good Bill Committee in the sense that we had 10 sessions relating to the very important
	issues that were at stake. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) served on the Committee, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and our colleague, whom we have sadly lost, the former Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. He also served on the Intelligence and Security Committee and brought great expertise to bear.
	Why are we here today? Why have the Opposition had to bring forward a debate in Opposition time to ask the Home Secretary and the Government what is going to happen at the end of the month when a number of people who have already declared themselves a threat to our country are going to be released because the TPIMs regime has a time limit—and there is nothing in its place to deal with these individuals?
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle said he had concerns and was aware of three of the six or seven people involved, whom he considered at the time to be a threat to the nation. We have heard nothing today to allay the concerns that he and I have. We have information about the individuals under this TPIMs regime, and until I hear something different, I will consider them to be a threat. I am happy to say that is not my responsibility, however. It is the responsibility of the Home Secretary. It is the Home Secretary who takes out the TPIMs, acting on the recommendations of, and information given to her by, the security forces. I hope the Minister will be able to allay our fears about these individuals who are going to be released because the TPIMs regime only lasts for two years, and there is nothing in place to deal with them.
	I noticed that the briefings sent out said there would be a tailored response by the security services to each of these individuals. I understand the Minister cannot go into the detail of what that tailored response will be, but we need to know whether these people are still a threat to our nation and whether they are going to be treated as such.
	I christened the TPIMs mini-control orders, which the Minister did not like at the time and I am sure he will not like now. The only difference from the control orders was the issue of relocation and the two-year limit, which went against the advice of the then independent person, Lord Carlile, and the former Home Secretary, Lord Howard. It is interesting to note the views of former Home Secretaries, who have had the unfortunate responsibility of dealing with the nature of this threat. I do not believe that the threat has lifted in any real way; we still live in a dangerous time, and that is why it is right and important to give thanks to the police and the Security Service for the excellent work they do. We should never underestimate, or fail to reflect on, the work they do to stop threats being executed.
	I hope that we do reflect on this issue, though it is sad that that has to be done on an Opposition day. I agree with the hon. Member for South Swindon that we should try to find a way to discuss these matters without being partisan. As I have said, the Government of the day took the clear decision that they did not think control orders were appropriate and they considered TPIMs to be a better measure, to restore what they said was the right balance between the individual and society.
	The terrorists have only got to get it right once, whereas the security forces have got to meet all the threats. Surely what should be of concern to us all is the safety of the nation. I believe that if there are six people
	who are a threat to us, we should know about it and we should know we are going to defend our nation in the way we have tried to defend it before. This is an important debate, and we need answers.
	I raised the issue of cost. We were told that control orders cost about £1.8 million per individual, yet we are now told the cost is nearer £18 million per individual. Will the Minister deal with that point, and also with the cost of the legal cases since 2012 getting somewhere near £2 million? I am sure we can deal with the details another day, but the principal question is: is the country safer because of TPIMs? We hope that the Minister can give us some positive responses in his reply.

Tom Harris: Let me start by reminding the House why this debate is taking place today, and to do so I will quote from today’s The Times:
	“A terror suspect feared to have been plotting a Mumbai-style attack in London is to be free to walk the streets in days despite MI5 warning against lifting restrictions on his movements.
	The security service said there was a ‘real risk’ that the man, known as CD, would attempt to revive plans for terror attacks in the UK if curbs were lifted.”
	The report continues:
	“Court papers show that the security services judged that CD would be able quickly and covertly to purchase firearms for use in his attack plans and that without a Tpim in place there was a ‘real risk’ that he would seek to revive his plans to carry out attacks in the UK or engage in other terrorism related activity.”
	This man is about to go free from all restrictions that have been previously imposed on him, despite the fact that in September 2012, just 15 months ago, the Home Secretary described CD as “a leading figure” in an extremist network in north London, who had displayed a “very high level” of “security awareness”. I found it deeply disappointing that despite repeated questions from myself and from the shadow Home Secretary, the Home Secretary refused to answer a very straightforward and pertinent question: does she still believe that her assessment, delivered to the House in September 2012, is relevant? Does she still believe that CD is a threat? She refused to answer that, so we must conclude that the answer is yes.
	Another question to ask is: do Ministers trust our security services? Do they trust the judgment of our security services? I found it odd, almost surreal, that during the debate the Minister for Crime Prevention, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who wrote a book slandering MI5 for alleged complicity in the murder of Dr David Kelly, was sitting supporting the Home Secretary and the release of a number of highly dangerous criminals—terrorists—from their obligations under TPIMs. He was sitting there during the debate offering his support, and Ministers sometimes have to be wary about whose support they encourage.
	If we have in our country a number of individuals whom we can all agree pose a risk but cannot be deported or charged, they must be contained. If control orders, with appropriate judicial oversight, result in those individuals being subject to restrictions for an indefinite period, that is a consequence we should be prepared to tolerate. I have to take issue with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)—he would be
	disappointed if I did not do so—because I disagreed with almost everything he said, apart from one thing: he said that control orders did not contribute whatsoever to the conviction rate of suspected terrorists. He is absolutely right about that, but of course he is entirely wrong to imagine that that was ever the point of control orders. Control orders were put in place to prevent terrorist acts from happening—to protect individual members of the public; they were never intended as a mechanism to increase the conviction rate of terrorists.
	Let us consider the current alternative to control orders. If an individual spends two years dreaming about the carnage he wishes to wreak on the wider population, but does not act on it, he will be released to walk the streets to associate with whomever he likes. The idea is absurd: if someone behaves themselves for two years while they know that their movements and communications are being monitored, they are guaranteed to be relieved of those restrictions because they will be deemed no longer to be a threat—not because they are a reformed character but because they have managed to resist the temptation to plan anyone’s death for a couple of years. Why do we not give them an OBE while we are at it?
	Control orders, although despised by the civil liberties lobby, were a proportionate response to the threat of terrorism—they were proportionate because of the scale and nature of the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. Yet too many in this Chamber, on both sides of the House, do not recognise the scale or the nature of that threat. They claim that the threat is no greater than that previously posed by the IRA and that British foreign policy is as much to blame as this hateful religious ideology. They convince themselves that everything did not change after 9/11. They are wrong; everything did change. We need a legislative framework that will provide a proportionate response to this new form of terrorism. A regime that allows people whom the Home Secretary and the security services consider to be a threat to walk our streets does not deserve the support of this House.

Kevan Jones: The first priority of any Government must be the protection of their citizens. In this country, we take for granted the freedoms and liberties that have been built up over many centuries. Do many of our constituents think about the threats that are posed by Islamic terrorists? No, they do not, and that is quite right as they have to go about their daily business. None the less, there is a serious threat. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) has just mentioned the fact that some people believe that this threat is similar to that posed by the IRA. It is not similar to IRA terrorism. It is not similar to other terrorist organisations that act against states. Ideologically, this is a corrupted version of Islam that is hellbent on taking away the liberties and the way of life that we have built up over many centuries and that we in this House support. It also involves individuals who are prepared to take part in atrocities, including by taking their own lives, against all types of communities. That was certainly not the case with other terrorist organisations. What we are dealing with here is a new type of threat.
	I agree with previous speakers when they asked whether, in an ideal world, we would have control orders or TPIMs. No, we would not. There is a recognition that,
	in a small group of cases, the state needs to act to protect its citizens. The hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who is not in his place, said that we should not make this a party political matter. I must say that that is a bit rich coming from the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrat party, which made it a very political matter at the previous election.
	I do not know what fantasy world the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) lives in, but it is clear that he has a distorted view of control orders and the TPIMs arrangement. I know that Government Members scoffed when I suggested that the courts were doing their job when they turned down control orders. Well, they were; it was built into the process. The hon. Gentleman stated that the relocation of people was tantamount to a Soviet-style regime. No, it was not. In that system, the High Court could review cases and, in some instances, they overturned them. It was doing its job as defined by the legislation. Four cases were rejected. The idea that the Home Secretary has put over today that the courts were the reason for changing control orders was nailed by the independent reviewer, David Anderson, in his report. He said:
	“The possibility of relocation has now been removed. That step was not required by the courts (which had indeed shown themselves generally supportive of relocation as a deterrent to TRA”—
	terrorist-related activity.
	In an ideal world, we would want to prosecute such cases, but it is not possible. That does not mean that those individuals are not dangerous to our citizens and our way of life, but what TPIMs have done—they were referred to by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) as control orders-lite, which is exactly what they are—is to affect two fundamental issues: the arbitrary two-year time limit and relocation. I know that the Liberal Democrats might not want to be reminded of being lectured by Lord Carlile, but what he said is important and interesting. He said:
	“With my experience from the beginning of control orders until early this year, I wonder why we are troubling to replace a functioning system with another that has almost entirely the same arms, body and legs, but…there is one leg missing from the Bill, and for now, in my view, it gives this legislation a distinct limp. It is the continuing power to order relocation, subject, of course, to the usual court procedures.”
	Again, that is something that the hon. Member for Cambridge seems to forget about. Lord Carlile went on to say:
	“On the evidence available, I am persuaded firmly—I choose my words carefully—to the view that it would be negligent to remove relocation from the main provisions.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 October 2011; Vol. 730, c. 1176.]
	Clearly, the TPIMs system has taken two of the fundamental provisions away. The question for the Government and the Home Secretary today, which she refused constantly to answer, was about the six individuals who will come off TPIMs in the next week. What will happen to them? She gave us an assurance that the Security Service has put in place the necessary monitoring systems, but we need to know about that as the public need that reassurance. Without it, people who are a threat to the liberties we take for granted in this country will walk free on our streets. It is not good enough for the Home Secretary simply to say, “Trust me, this will happen.” These people are either a threat or not a threat, but the public need to know.
	I do not often agree with the editorial of The Sun, which said this morning:
	“The Coalition is relaxing terror controls just as Britain enters a perilous era.”

Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) reminded us at the start of his speech that the first priority of any Government should be to provide national security for its citizens. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) reminded us that, sadly, we are living in dangerous times. Any changes to the regime for dealing with people who threaten our country and our citizens must therefore be dealt with very seriously. That is why the hon. Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said that this is too big for party politics. It is an issue on which all political parties should work together in the national interest and, essentially, that is what the Opposition motion does. It suggests exactly where we should be going.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), with all his experience, clearly spelt out the difference between control orders and TPIMs—essentially, the introduction of an arbitrary time limit and the removal of the relocation element. Under the TPIM system that the Government have put in place, they have already lost two individuals who were subject to such measures so, in that respect, there have been failures in the regime. There are still questions about what happened with those two individuals and they have not all been satisfactorily answered.
	One advantage of speaking towards the end of the debate is that one has the benefit of listening to the wisdom of all Members, which is significant in this case, but I still do not understand why exactly the individuals who are currently on TPIMs will go off them next month and how that is a secure process. When pressed, the Home Secretary did not give full assurances. She suggested that she felt comfortable with the process, but I do not think that those assurances were strong enough for this House or, more importantly, citizens outside it.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Home Secretary could not even tell us whether the Government were going to take the passports off those individuals and whether they would be free to roam around.

Nicholas Dakin: She was certainly reticent about sharing that information with the House. Interestingly, one individual who absconded did not have a passport but had entered the country with some other identification about which we were not given further details. The plot thickens.
	It is clear that nobody wants TPIMs or control orders, and it would be much better to prosecute those involved in terrorism. But we have heard from the Home Secretary and two eminent former Home Secretaries that in a small number of cases evidence is inadmissible because it would compromise security, and that means that alternative measures need to be in place. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) said, that applies to a very small number of individuals, but they pose a serious danger to the public and the public would expect us to
	have powers in place to secure our security in regard to those cases. My right hon. Friend said that he knows these cases inside out and expressed concern about the future behaviour of those individuals. Let us hope that his concerns are ill founded and that the Home Secretary’s assurances are well founded. If the opposite is true, we will all pay the price, which none of us wants.
	Those currently subject to a TPIM notice are accused of terrorist activities, which David Anderson QC describes as
	“at the highest end of seriousness, even by standards of international terrorism.”
	These are very serious cases. They are not trivial. These individuals are not members of organisations like the scouts. They are people who are involved in activities of serious concern. The evidence is there.

Jim Shannon: The figures show that the cost of the six TPIMs, including MI5, special branch, the police and everyone else who is required to look after these people, is some £20 million. As has been said, prosecution is the only way forward.

Nicholas Dakin: Next month, the six individuals currently subject to a TPIM will no longer be subject to a TPIM. In my simple world, either they do not need a TPIM now or they need one in the future. If there is no TPIM in the future, we need more clarity from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). He is a good Minister and I hope that he will be able to give more clarity than the Home Secretary was able to give about the strength of powers that are in place to ensure that these six individuals do not pose a threat to citizens of the UK or elsewhere.
	Unfortunately, the Government first weakened the powers of control orders by removing the relocation element when the TPIM process was involved, and now all powers to manage these suspects will end. There is a lack of clarity, but that is what seems to be happening, because of an essentially arbitrary two-year limit after which these people who are considered to be a real threat turn into pumpkins of no threat. That does not appear at all credible.
	As the shadow Home Secretary spelt out clearly in opening the debate, the Labour party wants necessary but proportionate powers to manage the dangers that these individuals pose. It has persistently and consistently offered to work with the Government in the national interest to ensure that appropriate powers are taken forward on a cross-party basis to protect our citizens from that small group of people who pose such a risk.

Diana Johnson: Today the House is debating the Government’s first responsibility, which is to keep their citizens safe, in this case from acts of terror, and the expiry of the six TPIM orders on individuals who have been identified as posing a terrorist threat, but who will all have restrictions removed from them, regardless of the security assessment, because of the two-year limit on the life of the orders brought in by the coalition Government.
	Different views have been expressed, but one thing unites the House: we would all prefer not to need TPIMs or control orders. We would all prefer to see terrorist suspects prosecuted. That would be fairer, more effective and cheaper, but it is not always possible. We are debating how to deal most effectively and fairly with the small number of exceptional cases that cannot be prosecuted. As the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, has said, those on TPIMs are accused of
	“terrorist activities at the highest end of seriousness, even by standards of international terrorism.”
	For the past decade, Labour and the Conservatives have agreed on the need to have terrorism orders that are restrictive but viewed by successive Home Secretaries and the High Court to be necessary and proportionate. The current Home Secretary decided to weaken those powers, first by removing the power to relocate, and secondly by introducing an automatic ending of such orders after two years. That leaves a series of questions about her judgment.
	As six of the individuals subject to TPIMs will have all restrictions ended this month, owing to the legislation that the Home Secretary introduced, the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary still need addressing: what risk does each man pose, and what action has the Home Secretary taken to reduce the risk? Parliament needs to know whether TPIMs are still fit for purpose and whether reforms are now needed in the interests of public safety. It is important that she recognises that these are genuine concerns.
	We heard many excellent contributions in this high-quality debate, including from two former Home Secretaries, my right hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson); from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee; from the former shadow Minister who led for Labour when the TPIMs Bill went through Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe); and from my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). We also heard three contributions from the Government Benches.
	Given the number of points that have been made, I will limit my remarks to the issues that I think the Government still need to respond to. First, the TPIMs regime was supposed to allow more prosecutions at the same time as providing protection for the public. Will the Minister confirm whether any of the individuals subject to TPIMs have actually been prosecuted for terrorist-related activity?
	Secondly, we know that two of the people subject to TPIMs have absconded. The fact that the power of relocation is no longer available to the Home Secretary might have something to do with that. Will the Minister agree to reflect on whether it was wise to ignore the advice of the former Conservative Home Secretary, the noble Lord Howard, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the noble Lord Carlile, and the police when removing the power of relocation?
	When TPIMs replaced control orders, Parliament was promised that the introduction of those weaker powers would be accompanied by extra surveillance capacity. The Public Bill Committee was promised an elaborate web of 24-hour surveillance provided by specially
	trained officers. The cost was predicted to rise from £1.8 million a year for a control order to £18 million a year for a TPIM, but Ibrahim Magag disappeared by getting into a taxi and Mohamed did the same by donning a burqa and removing his tag. Will the Minister set out whether the TPIMs regime provided the direct surveillance of suspects that Parliament was promised? For example, was either of those suspects under direct surveillance when they disappeared?
	The Home Secretary pointed out that individuals had in the past been taken off control orders. Indeed they were, but the difference is that in those cases the individuals were no longer deemed to pose a high risk. Now the decision has been taken away from the Government with the automatic ending of a TPIM after a maximum of two years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, when pressing the Home Secretary on her personal view on when individuals should come off TPIMs, asked whether she thought that they posed a risk. She refused to answer.
	The Home Secretary was also asked whether she thought that the person known as CD still posed a risk. As she was previously able to tell us what the risk assessment was for Magag and Mohamed, it is rather unfortunate that she was unable to be as candid on the Floor of the House in this important debate about these individuals.
	Let me say clearly to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that nobody wants people to remain on TPIM orders indefinitely, but we do want a proper risk assessment as to when a person should come off a TPIM order, not an arbitrary two-year time limit. That is our position, and I hope he will reflect on that.
	Control orders and TPIMs have had some parliamentary oversight from the Intelligence and Security Committee, and that vital form of accountability needs to continue. The Opposition would like an assurance that the ISC will be given the individual risk assessments for each person who is currently subject to a TPIM order and the individual plans for them once they are no longer subject to it.
	It would be helpful if the Minister said a little more about what is going to happen after these orders come to an end. He has referred to specially tailored packages, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham asked for more information about exactly what that would mean. I understand the constraints that the Minister is under, but a more general comment would be welcome.
	When TPIMs replaced control orders, the extra cost continued to be borne by the Home Office. Will the Minister say where any extra funding will come from and clarify whether Ministers will remain responsible for the oversight of these individuals once the TPIM orders have been lifted?
	I want to ask the Minister about any additional powers that might be required. The Opposition have offered assistance and co-operation to bring in necessary but proportionate measures on a cross-party basis. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) referred to the issue that David Anderson raised about the possibility of a provision akin to a licence condition being imposed when someone comes off a TPIM order. The Opposition would be willing to consider that with the Minister if he were willing to engage in such discussions.
	Will the Minister comment on the restriction on foreign travel? When someone is placed on a TPIM order, their passport should be confiscated, although that did not happen in the case of Mohamed, and we have not got to the bottom of where the passport is or whether it is still in existence. Seven of the current TPIM suspects are thought to have travelled abroad to Pakistan, Syria or Somalia to attend terrorist training camps, where they develop the expertise and skills that make them so dangerous. I heard what the Home Secretary said about the use of the royal prerogative, but will the Minister confirm whether any additional powers are needed to stop these individuals travelling abroad once they are no longer restricted by TPIM orders?
	We hope that the Minister will acknowledge that we have used an Opposition day debate to raise an important matter, to offer co-operation on an issue of national security, and to work together on a cross-party basis to make sure that we have legislation that is fit for purpose.

James Brokenshire: Let me say at the outset that this Government regard protecting the British public from terrorism as absolutely one of the most important functions of the state. I stress the seriousness and weight that the Home Secretary, other Ministers and I attach to the exercise of these powers, and therefore the careful consideration that we give to them.
	We have been consistently clear that violence and extremism of all kinds have no place in today’s society. We believe that individuals who engage in terrorist activity should be prosecuted wherever and whenever possible. The right place for terrorists is behind bars. In that context—I am sure that this will be supported by Members in all parts of the House—I recognise and pay tribute to the work of the police and the security services in protecting the security of our country and pursuing those who would seek to do us harm.
	However, where individuals who pose a threat to this country and its people cannot be prosecuted or deported, we need powerful measures that can help manage the risk. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made that point clearly. That was exactly why we took stock and reviewed the control orders that the previous Government had used. Despite what a number of Members have said today, it was clear to us that control orders were not working as they were intended to.
	During the six years for which control orders existed, seven people absconded. Moreover, they were being steadily eroded by the courts. A total of eight were either quashed or revoked because they were thought wrong in principle, because they were believed no longer to be necessary or because the previous Government were unable to make a disclosure ordered by the court. Furthermore, in four cases the relocation of individuals subject to control orders was quashed. That was why we judged that the state of affairs was untenable. The British public rightly expect protection from dangerous individuals, and we needed a robust system that would provide effective and workable restrictions. We therefore ordered a lengthy and considered review of our counter-terrorism powers against the risk that then existed.
	We judge that TPIMs have proved effective and workable. They have consistently been upheld by the courts, they have been endorsed by two separate independent reviewers of counter-terrorism legislation and they have the confidence of the police and the Security Service. To quote David Anderson, they are a “harsh measure” that provide some of the toughest controls possible in the democratic world. They provide for a comprehensive range of restrictions that can be placed on terror suspects, including daily reporting; overnight residence at a specified address; a ban on overseas travel; the wearing of a global positioning system tracking tag; limits on the use of telephones, computers and financial services and on association; and exclusion from specific places such as ports and airports. They give the police certainty about how individuals will be managed. In his first annual report on TPIMs, David Anderson stated:
	“In terms of security, the TPIM regime continues to provide a high degree of protection against untriable and undeportable persons who are judged on substantial grounds to be dangerous terrorists”.

Jack Straw: Since the Minister quotes Mr David Anderson with approval, does he also accept Mr Anderson’s view that the courts did not object in principle to the operation of the relocation provisions in control orders?

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman needs to understand—I am sure he will recognise this, as a former Home Secretary—that we need to focus on the management of dangerous offenders’ exit strategies and how they are released. As the Home Secretary made clear, the courts struck down relocation on a number of occasions. Our concern has been, and always will be, about having a continuing arrangement to provide assurance about the management of such offenders. Most importantly, the police and the Security Service, whose opinions are after all the ones we should listen to on the subject, say that TPIMs have been effective in disrupting individuals and networks that pose a threat to this country’s security. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear, however, they are only one weapon in the fight against extremism and terrorism.

Jack Straw: With respect to the Minister, that was not an answer to the question that I posed. Given that he quoted Mr Anderson with approval, does he accept Mr Anderson’s considered opinion that the courts did not in principle stand in the way of the operation of relocation?

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members have implied that, in essence, the measure was a silver bullet and the solution, but that absolutely was not the case. The courts have challenged relocation in individual cases, and it is therefore important for us to reflect on that in the management of those individuals.
	As my colleague the Home Secretary has made clear, TPIMs are only one weapon in our fight against extremism and terrorism. They are used only in exceptional circumstances as part of measures designed to disrupt a person’s activities—in other words, part of the bigger picture that my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) mentioned. Alongside TPIMs, the Government provided additional funding of tens of
	millions of pounds a year to the Security Service and the police, substantially increasing their surveillance and counter-terrorism capabilities. In addition to TPIMs, a range of tough measures are in place to disrupt the activities of people engaged in terrorist activities, and prevent people from becoming radicalised.
	We are using the royal prerogative to remove passports from British nationals whom we believe want to travel abroad to take part in terrorist and extremist activity, and who on their return would pose a threat to this country. We have strong controls in place at British ports, and the National Border Targeting Centre is able to check advance passenger information provided by carriers, and identify any known persons of interest who intend to travel. We have the power to exclude extremists and preachers of hate from coming to this country, and where necessary we may consider the use of other disruptive powers, including deprivation of British citizenship where an individual is a dual national and the Home Secretary determines that such action is conducive to the public good.

Alan Johnson: Will the Minister give way?

James Brokenshire: I will give way briefly as I have only a couple of minutes.

Alan Johnson: I am grateful; the hon. Gentleman has a couple of minutes to tell Parliament what it needs to know. In the judgment of the Home Secretary, which of the six people who will be released from their TPIMs, and who were considered so dangerous that they needed to have those restrictive measures, still pose a security threat?

James Brokenshire: As the Home Secretary made clear, and as I said in my contribution this afternoon, the police and the Security Service have stated that TPIMs have been effective in reducing the risk associated with those individuals. The right hon. Gentleman, and others, have sought to make a point about the risk assessments. Those have been made but they are an operational matter for the police and the Security Service. It would seem that right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to have information disclosed on the Floor of the House that could make it that much harder for the police and the Security Service to do their job of protecting this country.
	The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 provides for the appointment of an independent reviewer of the operation of that Act, and for that reviewer to report annually on the outcome of that review. David Anderson has been appointed to perform that function and reviews all TPIM cases. No doubt he will cover those coming off their TPIMs in his annual report.
	We are returning dangerous foreign nationals who have no right to be here back to their home countries through deportation with assurances, just as we did with Abu Qatada last July—something the previous Labour Government failed to do. We are working to do more than ever to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. I am clear that the best place for a terrorist is in a cell, and those who endanger lives and threaten our national security deserve to receive long sentences. Unlike under the Labour party, which was content for convicted terrorists to be released halfway through their sentences, under new proposals, criminals
	convicted of serious terrorism offences and who receive a determinate sentence will no longer be automatically released at the halfway point of their prison sentences without any assessment.

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question accordingly put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 236, Noes 312.

Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Statistics

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 9122/12, a draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 223/2009 on European statistics, No. 14230/12, European Court of Auditors Special Report No. 12/2012: Did the Commission and Eurostat improve the process for producing reliable and credible European statistics?, and No. 15976/12, a European Central Bank Opinion on the draft Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 223/2009 on European statistics (CON/2012/84); notes the success that the UK has achieved so far against its negotiating objectives in Council negotiations on amendments to Regulation (EC) No. 223/2009; and supports the Government’s view that it should approve any final compromise text which ensures those objectives and improves the legal framework for the production of reliable and credible European statistics.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Safety of Nuclear Installations

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15030/13, a draft Council Directive amending Directive 2009/71/EURATOM establishing a Community framework for the nuclear safety of nuclear installations; notes the importance of learning the lessons from the Fukushima nuclear accident at a national level; and agrees with the Government that, while there is a need to ensure that a robust EU nuclear safety framework is in place, any changes to the current framework should be evidence based, proportionate to the risks they aim to address and do not result in a shift of competence away from Member States.—(Mr Gyimah.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Scunthorpe Hospital Car Parking Charges

Nicholas Dakin: I would like to present a petition against increases in Scunthorpe hospital car parking charges and to commend the work of local councillors Haque Kataria and Mashook Ali for the leadership they have shown in working with the local community to raise this petition.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Scunthorpe,
	Declares that the Petitioners are very concerned that car parking prices at Scunthorpe General Hospital have been increased from September 2013.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the hospital to think of local constituents who are affected by this price increase and reconsider their decision.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001315]

STAYING PUT AGENDA

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Craig Whittaker: May I say what an honour it is to have secured this evening’s Adjournment debate?
	We have all heard some of the statistics on outcomes for our nation’s 68,000-plus looked-after children, and I think everybody will agree that our country’s record on helping this most vulnerable group of young people when they leave care is nothing short of appalling. Of the 7,000 19-year-olds who were in care at 16, 36% are not in education, employment or training, and only 6% of all care leavers are in higher education, compared with 43% of their peers. We can add to those figures the fact that just 12.8% of children in care obtained five good GCSE grades, compared with 57.9% of their peers, and that about 23% of the adult prison population have spent some time in care. Around a quarter of those living on the streets also have a care background, while care leavers are four or five times more likely to commit suicide. Finally, about 47% of looked-after children aged five to 17 show signs of psychosocial adversity and psychiatric disorders, which is higher than among the most disadvantaged children living in private households.
	Physical and mental problems increase at the time of leaving care. In order to address the many serious challenges faced by care leavers, the Government propose to introduce an amendment to the Children and Families Bill to allow young people who are fostered to remain with their carers until they are 21, if they wish and their carers agree and if it is considered to be in their best interests to do so. All young people in foster care will be offered enhanced support until they are 21. For young people in foster care, this is one of the biggest, most fundamental changes to their support when they leave care and is widely applauded as a hugely significant change in the right direction for this incredibly vulnerable group of young people.
	The scandal, however, is that the extension to fostering excludes the 9% of young people in care who are placed in children’s homes. These young people have a wide range of needs and challenges. What most have in common is that they are vulnerable. That vulnerability is further enhanced by a stigma attached to residential care among politicians, the public and still, sadly, some in the social work profession. Ministers appear to see living in a family as the best option for children in care—I believe they are right—and as the only setting in which children may thrive. That is reflected by some social workers who see children’s homes as the last resort—a place where children who have “failed” family placements may be sent or as somewhere the more challenging young people may be placed. Many of the public see children’s homes as places where “naughty children” are sent. Historically, that view was compounded by some local authorities that used children’s homes to accommodate the more challenging young people.
	When recently asked by the Select Committee on Education to explain different care leaving ages for foster children and those in children’s homes, the Secretary of State for Education replied that fostering is different to residential options and that children’s homes will not
	get support until an unspecified number of children’s homes nationally have improved within an unspecified time, at which point he may consider it. However, Ofsted inspections of 400 children’s homes concluded by June last year found that on overall effectiveness 65% were good or outstanding and only 7% were inadequate; on outcomes for young people, 67% were good or outstanding and only 3% were inadequate; on quality of care, 74% were good or outstanding, with only 6% inadequate; on safeguarding of children and young people, 69% were good or outstanding, with only 6% inadequate; and, finally, on leadership and management, 57% were good or outstanding and only 9% inadequate.
	The Ofsted data, based on Ofsted inspection standards, thus show that the inspectors found most children’s homes to be good or outstanding and only a small percentage to be inadequate. I wonder whether the Secretary of State realises the absurdity of his argument. Surely, as the holder of the purse strings, he should be targeting the homes he is not happy with, and not the young people who are in them through not fault of their own. This suggests strongly that the stigma and misuse of residential care often mask some excellent work that is taking place. It is a credit to residential care that so many of the young children placed in children’s homes under such pressure grow up to lead fulfilling lives.

Tim Loughton: Perhaps I should declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but is not part of the problem the fact that the children who end up in residential children’s homes are, as he says, often there as a last resort, and will usually be there only for a matter of months, when what we really need to look at, rather than short-term spot purchasing of places, is long-term planning? Children need to go into good-quality residential children’s homes—the quality still needs to be improved—as a long-term planned option, just as it is for long-term fostering, rather than as a last resort. If that were the case, enabling children to stay on, which would be wholly consistent with fostering, could be seen as much more of a natural process.

Craig Whittaker: I agree absolutely with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, who has had massive experience in this field over the years and has worked tirelessly for young people. The solutions sought for these young people need to be diverse, but long-term planning for residential care is, without question, vital.
	The problem with allowing the amendment just for those in foster care is that it leads to inequalities and discrimination within the system, creating a two-tier system for these vulnerable young people. It does not include young people in residential care, so the state just washes its hands of children anywhere between the ages of 16 and 18 and cuts them free without any support in the big wide world. I have even heard stories of young people being sent back to their birth families just a few days before their 16th birthday, so the local authority no longer has to support them.
	As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on looked-after children and care leavers—a post held that the Minister held before me, so he has had massive experience with the APPG—I have been inundated with stories of young people feeling that the state is yet again letting
	them down because of the inequality and discrimination being created. In this particular case, however, I have noted a real anger coming from those young people in residential care—an anger that I feel is justified. The brilliant campaign led by the “Every Child Leaving Care Matters” team has in less than a month secured 5,000 signatures for the petition from care leavers to change the Government’s mind, and this has been backed by academics and charities from all over the nation. Five thousand young people cannot be wrong: they are angry about their exclusion, and as one young man said to me, “We are being stitched up yet again.”

Bill Esterson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on agreeing with the intervention by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I suggest that the long-term objective might be to treat children—whether they be in foster care or residential care—as if they were our own children, which is supposed to be the situation now. That implies a much more flexible and longer-term view of how long these children should stay with their parents.

Craig Whittaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I believe that nowadays the average age of young adults who live at home with their parents is 26 or 27, so why on earth should we cut these young people off all of a sudden when they turn 18, and send them off to fend for themselves? It just does not seem right.
	I would argue, as would many others, that young people in residential care are the most vulnerable of all. The majority have been through the fostering system, and have found themselves in placements that break down. The average number of placements for each child in the care system is seven, and the figure is generally much higher for those in residential care. Ben Ashcroft, who is a care leaver, had a total of 37 placements, and wrote a book about his experiences called “51 Moves”.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this important issue. Does he agree that continuity is essential for young people whose lives have been turned upside down and who have reached a critical point in their lives, and that they must be in a place that they can look on as their own and can see as being long-term rather than short-term?

Craig Whittaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. Traditionally, there has been a severing of the relationship between the state and these young people. It is vital for us to provide a long-term plan and security for all of them, not just for a section of them.
	Another young man who contacted me recently had had more than 85 placements. His case and Ben Ashcroft’s are extreme, but young people in residential care have far more than the average seven placements.
	Why should we want to discriminate against the most vulnerable members of an already vulnerable group? Most of us who are close to the system understand that it is not quite as simple as delivering foster placements until young people reach the age of 21, but the Government have been very quiet about those in residential homes, and about what some of the solutions might be. The Staying Put agenda has been piloted, tried and tested for young people in foster care, but nothing has yet been
	piloted for those in residential care. We need, at the very least, an announcement from the Government that there will be such pilots, and an indication from them that young people in residential homes can have the same rights and entitlements as those in foster placements until a long-term solution is found. However, the silence is deafening.
	I understand the caution, but I do not believe that young people who are in placements now, who are settled, and who will benefit from remaining in those placements until they are 21 should have to move elsewhere simply pending further research. They have needs now. Some will be facing failure, destitution, homelessness, exploitation and all the other risks that young people face on their own. That is happening now—not in the future, but now. Those young people should not be placed at risk pending further research.
	One of the Government’s concerns is that allowing young people to remain in children’s homes after their 18th birthday may cause problems for younger children placed, and that safeguarding issues could be involved. I struggle to see how a young person who is settled in a children’s home and enjoys a positive relationship with staff and peers should suddenly become a safeguarding risk when he or she turns 18, having never been so before.
	Some people argue that it is too soon to include changes in the leaving care arrangements for children placed in children’s homes by April 2014. I see no reason why those who are settled in placements, enjoy positive relationships and want to stay with the agreement of those in charge of their placements should not be supported and allowed to do so. The Government should give a commitment to support all young people leaving care until they are 21 by April 2014, while work is being done to establish how than can best be achieved.
	If cost is the issue when it comes to including the 9% of young people in residential care in the amendment, I must ask what the cost is of supporting young care leavers in the criminal justice system. I would ask about the costs to the benefits system and the mental health system, and the huge costs associated with homelessness.
	I recently highlighted a potential saving—and a good way of paying for such a scheme—that would involve ensuring that the birth parents did not continue to claim family benefit for the young person. Evidence from inquiry workshops relating to the report on entitlements produced by the all-party parliamentary group on looked-after children and care leavers showed that several young people on those workshops had birth parents who were still claiming child benefit from the state on their behalf, even though they had been in care several years.
	The law says that local authorities should stop the benefit when a child is taken into care, but in reality that practice is rather hit and miss. If the Department for Work and Pensions incentivised local authorities to stop the benefit by giving them, say, half the child benefit, we would have a win-win situation, with savings for the DWP and extra money to fund a scheme for local authorities. Sadly, however, the DWP fails to admit that this is an issue, despite those young people saying that it is.
	The changes in the Children and Families Bill are being made to improve the support for young people leaving foster care. However, the changes, which will in effect increase the care leaving age for many fostered children but not for those in other residential settings,
	could have unintended consequences. They risk creating a two-tier care system, in which children in foster care receive longer aftercare support than those in residential settings. They risk creating an “underclass” of children in residential care who will still have to leave care at 18. They risk reducing real choice for children, as they will be compelled to accept family care in order to gain better aftercare. They also risk creating serious issues for social workers when family placements are breaking down, because the social workers might repeat family placements in an effort to protect aftercare instead of considering the best option for the young person, which might include a residential care option. Finally, they risk creating a negative impact on the self-image and confidence of children in residential settings other than foster care, who might feel undervalued and discriminated against by a change that excludes them through no fault of their own.
	I would like to ask the Minister why young people in residential settings who are settled in placements, who enjoy positive relationships and who want to stay, with the agreement of their placement, should not be allowed and supported to continue to do so? There are no reasons why that cannot be done while the research into the best long-term options is ongoing. What is the Minister going to do to address any possible gross discrimination? Will he tell those young people what the Government’s plans are for pilots for a long-term solution that will give them the same support as young people in foster care? The brilliant amendment to the Children and Families Bill would represent a fantastic advancement for all young people in care, not just those in foster care.

Edward Timpson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) on securing this important debate. As my successor as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on looked-after children and care leavers, he is well placed to bring to the House the concerns and views of the many children and young people who actively participate in the group’s work. Like him, I completely recognise the vital need for care leavers to be provided with good-quality, stable accommodation and support if they are to make a successful transition to adulthood. Likewise, I am sure that he recognises my personal commitment, and that of the Government, to making substantial improvements to services for care leavers. That will include ensuring that young people are given help to access suitable accommodation with the right support.
	As has been said, we recently announced our intention to place a new legal duty on local authorities to provide staying-put arrangements, supported by additional funding of £40 million to local authorities over the next three years. We will introduce a new clause into the Children and Families Bill to place a duty on local authorities to give young people the opportunity to “stay put” with their former foster parents from their 18th birthday until they are aged 21. We have worked closely with the Who Cares Trust and other interested parties to ensure that we get the wording of the new clause right, and I look forward to tabling it soon.
	That is not the only step we are taking. This is all part of our wider reform programme to provide care leavers with much better support as they move into adulthood. Other reforms include changing the rules so that 16 and 17-year-olds remain in care until they are ready to move out, and providing much greater financial support for young people leaving care at 18.
	My hon. Friend has secured this debate in order to express his concern about the potential for inequity between young people in foster care and those in children’s homes. So let me be clear: I want to ensure that all care leavers, whatever their placement while in the care system, are provided with the appropriate support when they leave care. As my hon. Friend is aware, one of my two adopted brothers came to live with my family from a children’s home, so I have a deep personal interest in wanting to see all children’s homes provide the best-quality care and support on offer, both during a child or young person’s time in care and as they move on to independent living or other accommodation.
	My hon. Friend says that for some young people staying in the children’s home is the right thing to do. I agree, and the law is clear that local authorities can already provide funding and support to a young person to stay with their former foster carer or to remain in a children’s home beyond their 18th birthday, and we know and see examples of that already happening. The issue, however, is whether it is appropriate to place a new duty on local authorities to provide a particular type of support to all young people in children’s homes.
	The evidence for placing such a duty on supporting staying-put arrangements for young people in foster care is robust. Staying-put arrangements were tested out in pilots, and proved to have a positive impact on their outcomes. Research from the Fostering Network since the pilots ended shows that, where these arrangements continue, they show similar positive outcomes. Making the transition from a children’s home and from a foster home are very different, however. For some children, leaving a children’s home means moving into residential accommodation for adults. For others, it will be supported accommodation back in their home community; I acknowledge that many—too many—children’s homes are miles from where their families live. We also know that a disproportionate number of young people leave children’s homes and go home to live with their families.
	There are also a number of practical and legal issues we would need to consider and test out before placing a duty on local authorities to have to provide staying-put arrangements in children’s homes. A key barrier would be having vulnerable adults living alongside much younger vulnerable children. My hon. Friend addressed that point, but children’s homes are, in law, establishments “wholly or mainly” for children and are registered as such by Ofsted, which, as my hon. Friend mentioned, inspects children’s homes and makes judgments on how the home is achieving outcomes for children. As part of our wider reform of residential care, a much stronger inspection regime will be put in place to help drive up quality standards.
	Given that most children’s homes are now very small—typically 2, 3 or 4 beds—extending staying put could result, for example, in a home accommodating two or three care leavers and one child. In this case it could not be registered as a “children’s home”, as it would mainly be an establishment accommodating young adults, which
	could cause difficulties for the only child living there. For the same reason, Ofsted would not have any legal scope to regulate and inspect this service.
	I recognise, however, that these should not be viewed as insurmountable barriers, so my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I have asked my officials to work with the National Children’s Bureau, the Who Cares Trust and Catch 22 to look at the practical issues of introducing staying-put arrangements in children’s homes over the coming year.

Craig Whittaker: The news my hon. Friend has just announced is very welcome and I thank him for it, but I want to challenge him on some of his points about children’s homes and the number of adults staying in them. He has said that local authorities can already allow someone who is 18 to stay in care. Surely if that is allowed, the problems he is bringing up are not insurmountable and can be put right.

Edward Timpson: I have expressed a clear view about some of the legal and practical issues that remain. It is right that we consider them carefully and understand the consequences more widely across the residential care sector before taking any further steps. I want to be absolutely clear that I am not looking to find excuses not to do this. I am trying to establish what we will need to do to make me feel confident that any further steps we take will achieve what we all want, which is much more stability in placements, whatever that placement may be while in care, and a much better transition into adulthood that is co-ordinated and planned properly as a consequence of the input from the professionals involved in that young person’s life.
	As I said to my hon. Friend when I recently gave evidence to the Education Committee on this issue, if I believed that including children’s homes and staying-put arrangements was the right thing to do at this juncture, I would do it in a heartbeat. However, I think it would be premature to place a new duty on local authorities now or to pilot a scheme before the work being carried out by the National Children’s Bureau is completed. I also think such a move would be wrong when we know there needs to be fundamental reform of children’s homes, as the 2012 report by the Deputy Children’s Commissioner and the all-party group on runaway and missing children and adults illustrated so clearly.
	I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that children’s homes should not be seen as a last resort and should be a positive option for many, as I have said on several previous occasions in public and am happy to reiterate this evening. However, too many current homes are simply not good enough. He has said that Ofsted inspection reports show that most homes are rated as “good”, but that is under the current system of national minimum standards. Although there are undoubtedly some excellent children’s homes, and we should applaud them and try to encourage what they do well to be spread more widely, we do not think these standards—the “good” standards—are good enough, and neither do many of the children and young people in residential care. We want to raise the bar and move to much higher quality standards.
	Young people living in residential care are more likely to make an early transition from care at aged 16 compared with those living in foster care. Those who do leave at
	that stage are less likely to be in education, training and employment, as my hon. Friend said. That is why I have introduced a new duty that directors of children’s services must sign off the pathway plan where it suggests a young person should leave care between the ages of 16 and 18. As I said a few moments ago, research has found that many young people are dissatisfied with the support they receive, and report shortfalls in planning and preparation for leaving care, which leaves their needs unmet.
	Our immediate priority is to press ahead with driving up the quality of residential care, and we have set out a substantial programme of work to do that. We also want to test out new ways of delivering residential care via the children’s services innovation programme I recently announced. It will catalyse the development and spread of more effective ways of supporting children and of new approaches to commissioning—the point my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made—and managing that support. Part of that may well include a move away from spot purchasing and towards more regional commissioning, as well as the extension of a children’s homes remit further into adulthood. Our approach will build on the call for change from the field, as evident in the Association of Directors of Children’s Services “What is care for” report and in the Local Government Association’s report on the strategic commissioning of children’s homes.
	The “What is care for” report proposes a more fluid boundary between care and community services and new, more flexible models of care, particularly for troubled adolescents who often end up in care and placed in children’s homes. By winter 2014, we will support the developing, testing and implementation of the most promising approaches both in delivery and around the structure of services. I encourage all those who want to see improvements in residential care and its role in the transition to adulthood to come forward with their own ideas as to how best to achieve just that. We must get the system right before considering whether to run pilots or impose a duty on local authorities that requires them to provide staying-put arrangements in children’s homes. We must be confident that homes can offer children provision of the highest standard and that the £1 billion per year that we spend on placements in children’s homes is truly delivering for those living in them.
	As I said at the beginning of my speech, this all comes against the backdrop of a wider reform package for care leavers. It is important to remind the House that, to date: the Government have launched the care leavers’ charter, which sets out the support that care leavers can expect right up to the age of 25, with more than 120 local authorities now signed up; we have introduced the junior independent savings account for all care leavers, with more than 40,000 accounts now open, and with a £200 contribution from government; I have written to all local authorities calling for a dramatic improvement in financial support for care leavers, resulting in a tripling in the number of councils now paying £2,000 or more through the setting up home allowance; and we have published the first cross-government care leavers strategy, which sets out in one place the steps government is taking, from housing to health services, and from the justice system to educational institutions, to support care leavers to live independently once they have left their placement.
	I will take away the valid point raised by my hon. Friend about the post-care use of child benefit, and the correspondence that he has had with the Department for Work and Pensions. I am happy to work with him to ensure that the response that he receives from my ministerial colleagues in the DWP is sufficient to push that issue further forward, and I will happily discuss that with him in due course.
	I am determined to improve the outcomes of all care leavers, and I hope that the action that this Government have taken to date amply illustrates that endeavour. However, I am not yet convinced that placing a duty on local authorities to offer staying-put arrangements in children’s homes is the right thing to do at this time.
	I am acutely aware of the disappointment that this brings to many of those young people currently in
	residential care, and I share the ambition to see staying-put arrangements take hold in children’s homes, as has been the case and will now more widely happen in foster homes. Councils can, in certain instances, already do that. We first need to see more fundamental reform. We need to be confident that any change to the law is founded on good, sound evidence and that it will deliver what we all want to see. Sadly, we have not yet reached that point, but I hope my hon. Friend recognises my ongoing commitment in this area, as well as the significant progress that the Government have already made. I am grateful to him for securing this important debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.